ORDER : NAVIN SINHA, J. 1. We have heard counsel for the Appellant and the State Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). 2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 06.03.2013 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20480 of 2012. The application has been allowed and the election of the Appellant set aside on the ground that she was below 21 years of age on the date of filing of nomination, as determined by the Commission. 3. We find that no ground has been urged before us with regard to any procedural infirmity in the decision making process by the Commission. Findings of facts arrived at by it after hearing the parties based on admissible evidence have to be given finality and it shall not be our jurisdiction to reopen questions of facts in review jurisdiction. 4. We must also take notice of the submission on behalf of the Appellant that the question of her age being a disputed question of fact could not be examined by the Commission examine and that the matter could only have been decided in an Election Petition where evidence could have been led. We do not agree with the submissions as we do not find any disputed facts surviving after cross verification was done by the Commission of her Matriculation certificate from the competent authority i.e. the Bihar School Examination Board. 5. The last submissions that the Appellant could not have been unseated without the filing of an Election Petition under Article 243(O) of the Constitution does not appeal to us in view of 2004 (4) PLJR 482 (Sri Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Bihar) holding at paragraph-24 as follows:- “24. Thus, once this Court comes to know on being moved by any of the parties that a person holding the office is disqualified then this Court cannot sleep over the matter and allow the office bearer of a Panchayat to hold the office though he is not eligible and his election is void one. This matter requires attention by this Court. This matter requires attention by this Court. In cases where the candidates, having been convicted and sentenced for more than six months, are elected by suppressing the fact of their conviction and sentence and the disqualified persons holding the office of the Panchayat or as a matter of fact usurper of the office, though they have no right to hold the office and because of their disqualification, by suppression, fraud and misrepresentation, they have managed to get elected, in such a case this court will be failing in duty in preventing the public injury in case of refusal to interfere in such case. In such cases, this Court will issue a writ of quo warranto restraining the office bearers to function as members of the Panchayat.” 6. We find no merit in this Appeal. It is dismissed.