JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. This reference raises a question of seminal importance as to whether the State Election Commission is empowered to dwell upon and declare a candidate elected to be disqualified to the Office of a member or Office bearer of a local body, namely, that of a municipality under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 or to any Office under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the Rules framed thereunder. The moot question is as to whether the Legislature has transgressed the constitutional mandate contained in Article 243-O (b) of the Constitution of India or Article 243-ZG (b) thereof where there is a complete bar of calling in question any elections to the Panchayat or Municipality except by an election petition before such authority and in such manner as may be provided under law. 2. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners resulted in the framing of the questions that have been referred to for being answered primarily on a challenge raised to the provisions introduced under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 whereunder a power has been conferred on the State Election Commission to declare a member of the Panchayat or Municipality as the case may be to be disqualified on a receipt of a complaint, allegation or information by any person or authority since both the provisions are pari materia. I would be referring the provisions of Section 136(2) for the purpose of answering the reference which would also answer the construction of Section 18(2) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. In order to understand the issue, the relevant provisions of the Act are referred to hereinafter. 3. Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 reads as under:- "135. In order to understand the issue, the relevant provisions of the Act are referred to hereinafter. 3. Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 reads as under:- "135. Qualification for Membership - Every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat constituency shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Panchayat : Provided that in the case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women, no person who is not a member of any of the Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes or7Backward Classes or is not a woman, as the case may be, shall be qualified to be elected to such seat." 4. The said Section describes a qualification that if person whose name is in the list of voters shall be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Panchayat unless disqualified under the Act or under any law for the time being in force. The disqualification if incurred under the Act would be a bar for qualification. 5. Section 136 of the Act reads as under:- "136. The disqualification if incurred under the Act would be a bar for qualification. 5. Section 136 of the Act reads as under:- "136. Disqualification for Membership - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person- (a) is not a citizen of India ; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State : Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years; (c) is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority ; (d) is in service of any such institution receiving aid from Central or State Government or any local authority; (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal court whether within or out of India to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for good behavior under section 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (i) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Panchayat; (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices, Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after six years of general election. (2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of a Panchayat at any level or Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch of Gram Katchahri was before election or has become after election subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commissioner. (2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of a Panchayat at any level or Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat or Sarpanch of Gram Katchahri was before election or has become after election subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commissioner. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the notice of State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suo-motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard. Provided that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complain or petition subject matter of which is purely on election dispute such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. in accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. (3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of Panchayat, a Mukhiya, a Sarpanch is or becomes member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, or is or becomes a Municipal Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a Member of a Sanitary Board, or a member of a Nagar Panchayat or a member of any other Panchayat or Mukhiya, Sarpanch, then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, or of a Councillor of Municipality or Municipal Corporation or a Member of Sanitary Board or Nagar Panchayat or a Member of other Panchayat or Mukhiya or Sarpanch, his seat in the Panchayat shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, Municipality or the Municipal Corporation, Sanitary Board or the Nagar Panchayat or of any such Panchayat as the case may be. (4) Oath and affirmation - Immediately after election a member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry and Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat shall make and subscribe before such person as the State Election Commission may appoint in this behalf, an oath or affirmation and if such member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry or Mukhiya declines or otherwise refuses to make and subscribe such oath or affirmation as aforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. If such member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry or Mukhiya fails to make and subscribe an oath/affirmation after election and within three months of the date on which his term of office commences, his seat on the expiry of the said period shall be deemed to have become vacant." 6. The provision of Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 is extracted hereinunder:- "18. Disqualifications.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as member of the Municipality if such person - (a) is not a citizen of India; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law, for the time being in force, for the purpose of elections to the Legislature of the State: [Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty one years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years;] (c) is in the service of the Central or State Government or any local Authority; (d) is in the service of any such institution receiving aids from the Central or State Government or any local authority. (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of the Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal Court, whether within or without India, to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for keeping good behaviour under section- 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; or absconding being an accused in a criminal case for more than six months. (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (i) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Municipality; (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices; Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after 6 (six) years of general election; (k) if he has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election is held. (l) has been wilfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and functions or abuses the power vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or become physically or mentally in capacitated for performing his duties (m) If he has more than two living children:- provided that a person having more than two children on or upto the expiry of one year of the commencement of the Ordinance, shall not be deemed to be disqualified." (n) Has been absent from three consecutive meetings or sitting of the Municipality without having previously obtained permission form the councillors at a meeting. ["(2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of a Municipality at any level was before election or has become after election subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in subsection (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commission. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suomotu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard."] (3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of a Municipality, is or becomes a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council ; or is or becomes a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch, his seat in the Municipality shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or Panchayat, as the case may be." 7. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 136 of the 2006 Act leaves no room for doubt that it begins with non obstante clause and recites that a person shall be disqualified for election which means for contesting an election for the post referred to therein and then also categorically states that a person shall be disqualified after election if such a person suffers from any of the deficiencies referred to in the said subsection quoted hereinabove. Thus the incurring of the disqualification is contemplated either prior to contest an election or even thereafter. It is this question which has to be referred to the State Election Commission relating to the matter of disqualification or a suo motu cognizance can also be taken but the proviso of sub-section (2) categorically prohibits the State Election Commission not to entertain any complaint or petition. The subject matter whereof is purely an election dispute arising out of corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. as contained in Section 137 of the Act read with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Section 137 is extracted hereinunder:- "137. The subject matter whereof is purely an election dispute arising out of corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. as contained in Section 137 of the Act read with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Section 137 is extracted hereinunder:- "137. Election Petition- (1) The election to any office of a Panchayat or a Gram Katchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed : Provided that if an election to any office of a Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchahry is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchahry is situated and if the election to any office of Panchayat Samiti or to a Zila Parishad is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, is situated. (2) "Parties to the petition-A petitioner shall join as a respondent to his petition- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition." 8. Section 138 contains the bar as envisaged under Article 243 of the Constitution. The said section is extracted hereinunder:- "138. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters- Not withstanding anything contained in this Act- (a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243 K of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act." 9. The grounds on which an election can be declared to be void envisaged in Section 139 which is extracted hereinunder:- "139. The grounds on which an election can be declared to be void envisaged in Section 139 which is extracted hereinunder:- "139. Grounds for declaring election to be void - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion - (a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the Prescribed Authority, any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then the Prescribed Authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void. 10. The prescribed authority has the power to declare a candidate other than the returned candidates who have been elected in election petition. Corrupt practices have been defined under Section 141 of the Act which is extracted hereinunder:- "141. 10. The prescribed authority has the power to declare a candidate other than the returned candidates who have been elected in election petition. Corrupt practices have been defined under Section 141 of the Act which is extracted hereinunder:- "141. Corrupt Practices - The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act- (i) bribery as defined in clause (1) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Central Act 48 of 1951), for the time being in force; (ii) undue influences as defined in clause (2) of the said section for the time being in force; (iii) that appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to national symbols such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (iv) the promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the election of that candidate to or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (v) the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of candidate or his agent of any statement of 143 fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidature being statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election; (vi) the hiring or procuring whether on payment or otherwise, any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any voter (other than the candidate himself, the member of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided in accordance with the rules made under this Act : Provided that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or railway carriage by any voter at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause. Explanation- In this clause, the word "vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise whether used for the drawing of other vehicles or otherwise. (vii) the holding of any meeting at which intoxicating liquors are served; (viii) the issuing of any circular, placard or poster having reference to the election which does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof; (ix) any other practice which the Government may by rule specify to be a corrupt practice" 11. The conspectus of a reading of the aforesaid Sections of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 clearly entails the scope of exercise of powers by a prescribed authority in an election petition, the subject matter whereof cannot be gone into by the State Election Commission under the exercise of powers under Section 136(2) of the Act. 12. The word qualification denotes the existence of fitness and eligibility. The opposite of it, unqualified, means not having the necessary qualifications or endowed with specific qualities as prescribed. To disqualify means to make a person unqualified or pronounce him unqualified. It is the declaration of disability or legal incapacity. These words have different meanings and the Legislature has separately used and defined the word qualification in Section 135 and the word disqualification in Section 136 of the 2006 Act. Disqualification entails the characteristic of a person who is declared unqualified or becomes unqualified. 13. Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India stipulates two things - firstly, as to whether a member of a Panchayat, which means an elected member of the Panchayat after elections, and the second is the phrase "has become subject to disqualification" clearly indicates that the disqualification is such that his continuance or right to hold office gets affected by disqualification. 14. The disqualification may have been existing from before but its discovery after election or acquisition of any disqualification after election seems to be stipulated for being dealt with by way of a reference to such authority and in such manner as the State Legislature may provide. 15. It is to be noted that the disqualification under Section 136 of the 2006 Act also includes a declaration of a corrupt practice through an election petition. 16. 15. It is to be noted that the disqualification under Section 136 of the 2006 Act also includes a declaration of a corrupt practice through an election petition. 16. The disqualification prescribed under the said section refers to either being disqualified for election or becoming disqualified after elections in order to hold the post. 17. The constitutional bar under Article 243-O(b) therefore is confined to a pure election dispute which has been taken care of in the proviso to Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act. 18. The grounds of an election petition as specified widely include the issue of disqualification as well but this gets confined to an election petition filed within time. 19. The question is that if a disqualification is discovered long after the expiry of the limitation prescribed for election petition which existed from before or in a case where the disqualification is incurred long after the tenure has commenced, can the Parliament or the Legislature be presumed to have lost the authority to make a law precluding any such challenge before the forum as provided for in terms of Article 243 F (2)? 20. The issue in the present case is not a dispute about the meaning of the aforesaid words but of the legal authorization of the State Election Commission to enter upon a reference and decide an issue of disqualification of a candidate either existing from before the elections or having incurred after the elections vis-a-vis the bar of questioning an election except by way of an election petition as envisaged under Section 138 of the Act read with Article 243 O (b) of the Constitution of India. This issue of forum has therefore to be resolved as it is the contention of the respective parties that the State Election Commission cannot exercise a power which falls within the realm of an election petition. This, in my opinion, would be dependent on the peculiar facts of each case and which has to be applied on case to case basis. 21. The remedy provided under sub-section (2) of Section 136 before the State Election Commission is constitutionally valid in terms of Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India which reads as under" "243F. This, in my opinion, would be dependent on the peculiar facts of each case and which has to be applied on case to case basis. 21. The remedy provided under sub-section (2) of Section 136 before the State Election Commission is constitutionally valid in terms of Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India which reads as under" "243F. Disqualifications for membership - (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Panchyat (a), if he is so disqualified by or under any law for them time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that be is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Legislature of the State (2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide." 22. Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act contains a proviso that removes the doubt of any overlapping of the exercise of powers by the State Election Commission which is in respect of a disqualification of a candidate either incurred before or after the election. 23. However, the doubt and the ground for challenge is about the mention of the disqualification in Section 135 of the Act. Section 135 is basically meant for prescribing a qualification namely that every person whose name is in the list of voters shall be qualified to be elected as a member or Office bearer. The issue of qualification cannot be a matter of dispute of disqualification that can be raised before the State Election Commission. The issue of qualification which may raise a dispute with regard to an incorrect entry in the voter-list may require leading of evidence and adjudication which can be gone into through the procedure of election petition envisaged in the provision provided for questioning an election through an election petition. The issue of qualification which may raise a dispute with regard to an incorrect entry in the voter-list may require leading of evidence and adjudication which can be gone into through the procedure of election petition envisaged in the provision provided for questioning an election through an election petition. It is for this reason that the reference to Section 135 in the contents of Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act have to be read down and I accordingly do so as that, in my opinion, would be a harmonious construction of the provision of Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act. 24. There is one distinguishable feature between both the provisions namely that of an election petition and that of an exercise of power under Section 136(2), which is that of limitation prescribed in relation thereto for filing an election petition. The limitation whereof is prescribed under Rule 106 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules 2006 which is 30 days from the date of declaration of election results. 25. In contrast to the same, entertaining of an application or taking suo motu cognizance for declaring an elected member or office bearer to be disqualified under Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act by the State Election Commission is not prohibited by any limitation. This is evident from no such prescription under the aforesaid provision or under Rule 117 of the 2006 Rules which provides as follows:- "117. Decision of Qualification:- The State Election Commission shall be the competent authority to decide any question of disqualification mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 136 of the Act. The matter of disqualification of a person shall be brought before the Commission by any person or officer in a form of an application, complain or notice. The State Election Commission itself may take such cognizance suo-motu. After giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, the State Election Commission shall make a decision at the earliest" 26. In order to make the provisions of Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India workable and to give a harmonious construction to the provisions aforesaid it can be safely construed that the exercise of power by the State Election Commission would be confined to the disqualifications under Section 136 of the 2006 Act and not in relation to any election dispute as contemplated under Section 137 read with Section 139 of the Act. 27. 27. There does not appear to be an area of conflict inasmuch as an election petition can be filed within 30 days and which would obviously be based on facts relating to the grounds of an election petition as envisage in Section 139 of the Act which may also include disqualification. The bar contained in Section 138 of the 2006 Act read with Section 243 O of the Constitution of India cannot bar the operation of the constitutional intent under Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India which was consciously inserted simultaneously for providing a forum to decide an issue of disqualification separately whether existing before election or incurred after election. 28. It is here that we have to analyse that where an issue can be decided only on the leading of evidence through an election petition, an issue of disqualification ex facie can be decided by the authority as prescribed in terms of the legislation under Article 243 F (2). To illustrate the same, if a person has been convicted in a criminal case that renders him disqualified as per the Act and such a fact remains undisputed, then a pre-existing disqualification or incurred even after the elections attracts a reference to the appropriate authority under Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution of India. Can this be said to be unconstitutional or even in conflict of Article 243 O (b) of the Constitution of India? An obvious answer would be that the interpretation of both the provisions namely Section 136 and Section 138 of the 2006 Act have to be first tested on the presumption of their constitutional validity and their harmonious existence. The said Articles; operate simultaneously without trenching on each other. They can work independently without affecting the right of an elected candidate or the rights of an aggrieved person who can approach the appropriate forum. The authority ultimately vests in the State, one on the administrative side that may exercise as a quasi judicial power and the other bestowed on a duly constituted tribunal. 29. Another illustration would be, which commonly arises, is in matters of reserved constituencies where a fake certificate depicting caste is utilized by a candidate for contesting the elections. The authority ultimately vests in the State, one on the administrative side that may exercise as a quasi judicial power and the other bestowed on a duly constituted tribunal. 29. Another illustration would be, which commonly arises, is in matters of reserved constituencies where a fake certificate depicting caste is utilized by a candidate for contesting the elections. If the document on the basis whereof a caste reservation is found to be fake, having not been issued by the competent authority, such a case can be a matter of reference under Article 243 F (2) of the Constitution to the appropriate authority under a law made by the State Legislature. What is to be examined is as to whether there would be a total bar of entertaining any such dispute by way of a reference and which is not a pure election dispute. 30. It has been rightly contended by Sri Amit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State Election Commission that the statute should not be struck down or declared invalid if it can be avoided and a construction should be adopted which leads to a workable solution. He has placed reliance on Paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. S. Teja Singh, (1959) AIR SC 352. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is extracted hereinunder:- "9 We must now refer to an aspect of the question, which strongly reinforces the conclusion stated above. On the construction contended for by the respondent, S. 18A(9) (b) would become wholly nugatory, as Ss. 22(1) and 22(2) can have no application to advance estimates to be furnished under S. 18A (3), and if we accede to this contention, we must hold that though the legislature enacted S. 18A (9) (b) with the very object of bringing the failure to send estimates under S. 18A(3) within the operation of S. 28, it signally failed to achieve its object. A construction which leads to such a result must, if that is possible, be avoided, on the principle expressed in the maxim, "ut res magis valea quam pereat." Vide Curtis v. Stovin, 1889 22 QBD 513 and in particular, the following observations of Fry L. J. at page 519: "The only alternative construction offered to us would lead to this result, that the plain intention of the Legislature has entirely failed by reason of a slight inexactitude in the language of the section. If w were to adopt this construction, we should be construing the Act in order to defeat its object rather than with a view to carry its object into effect." Vide also Craies on Stattue Law, page 90 and Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes, Tenth Edition, pages 236-237. "A statute is designed," observed Lord Dunedin in Whitney v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, 925 10 TaxCas 88 at p. 110, "to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to secure that object, unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable." 31. I may point out that there are two maxims that would apply to support the reasons for retaining the power of State Election Commission to the extent indicated above and also saving the proviso to Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act. At the same time, the said legal maxims as indicated in the Law Lexicon 3rd Edition is extracted hereinunder:- "Ut poena and paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat. (Lat.) (4 Inst. 6) That punishment may happen to a few, the fear of it affects all. Though few are punished, the fear of punishment affects all. (Latin for Lawyers) Ut res magis valeat quam pereat. (Lat.) (Noy, Max. 50) That the thing may rather have effect than be destroyed. It is better for a thing to have effect that to be made void. (Latin for Lawyers) That it may rather become operative than null. To unhold the constitutionality of statutes whenever it can rationally be done." 32. Applying the said principle, the conflict gets resolved and the inconsistency stands removed. It is the duty of the Court to reject any construction that may defeat the intention of the Legislature and make the statute workable. 33. To unhold the constitutionality of statutes whenever it can rationally be done." 32. Applying the said principle, the conflict gets resolved and the inconsistency stands removed. It is the duty of the Court to reject any construction that may defeat the intention of the Legislature and make the statute workable. 33. In the instant case, the Legislature itself has carved out the proviso in Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act which affects the situation and prevents the State Election Commission from including any exercise of adjudication. The subject matter of which is a purely election dispute arising out of a corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. as referred to in Section 137 read with Section 139 of 2006 Act. I would therefore uphold the power of the State Election Commission subject to the above. 34. The questions therefore referred stand answered to the following effect:- (1) The State Election Commission will have the power and authority to consider the qualification of a candidate excluding matters relating to qualification of a returned candidate which can be subject matter of challenge only through an election dispute. (2) The power of the State Election Commission to declare a returned candidate disqualified as per the provisions of disqualification extends to any point of time during his entire tenure on the basis of either uncontested or clinching evidence which may not require any adjudication or which may be subject matter of an election petition. The questions are answered accordingly. (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA) "Certainty is the mother of Repose and therefore the Common Law aims at Certainty" ---Lord Hardwick 35. The present reference to a Larger Bench of this Court has been occasioned on account of the fact that by virtue of an amendment to the Bihar Municipal Act and the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the State Election Commissioner has been empowered to decide the question as to whether a Member of the Municipality was "disqualified" before election or had entered disqualification after election. 36. It was on the basis of a Division Bench judgment reported in (State Election Commission vs. Poonam Kumari, (2009) 1 PLJR 712 ) that certain directions were issued to the State Government upon which they deemed it necessary to dwell on the necessity of amendment in the aforementioned Acts. 36. It was on the basis of a Division Bench judgment reported in (State Election Commission vs. Poonam Kumari, (2009) 1 PLJR 712 ) that certain directions were issued to the State Government upon which they deemed it necessary to dwell on the necessity of amendment in the aforementioned Acts. Consequently, such amendments were introduced giving rise to a variety of interpretations and creating uncertainty with reference to the settled principles of interpretation of statute. While one view of this Court supports the amendments as in the case of Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR 562 , and supported by a similar view in the case of Md. Shakil vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 3 PLJR 624 , which was affirmed in L.P.A. No.1615 of 2014, there are several Writs as well as Appeals with a divergent view and thus the matter has ultimately been placed before a Larger Bench in the case of Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar in Letters Patent Appeal No.1425 of 2014 with the following terms of reference: (i) Whether the State Election Commission will have power to consider disqualification of a candidate after election as such Election Commission is constituted only for conduct of elections ? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 476 read with Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 can be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred power to disqualify a candidate after election, as the disqualification of a candidate is a ground on which election petition can be filed ? (iii) Whether the State Election Commission will have power to declare a candidate disqualified when the limitation for filing the election petition has come to an end, meaning thereby instead of adopting an alternative statutory remedy, the State Election Commission can nullify the election ? 37. (iii) Whether the State Election Commission will have power to declare a candidate disqualified when the limitation for filing the election petition has come to an end, meaning thereby instead of adopting an alternative statutory remedy, the State Election Commission can nullify the election ? 37. Before proceeding further to dwell on the issue as to whether the State Election Commission has the power to consider the disqualification of a candidate after election, as such Election Commission is constituted only for conduct of the elections and whether the provisions of Section 476 read with Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 would be rendered meaningless in view of the grant of such power to the State Election Commission for consideration of disqualification of the candidate, it is appropriate to consider the provisions in issue and the Constitutional mandate from which such provisions emanate. 38. A quick glance of Article 243 to 243-O of Part IX, which was introduced in the Constitution by virtue of the 73rd Amendment Act of 1992, deals with the Panchayats and its constitution, the composition, reservation of seats and the duration of such Panchayats. The constitutional provisions of Article 243F deals with the disqualification of membership, which is quoted hereunder: "243F. Disqualifications for membership.--(1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Panchayat- (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. (2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law provide." 39. Further, Article 243K relates to the Elections to the Panchayats, which is quoted hereunder for quick recapitulation: “243K. Further, Article 243K relates to the Elections to the Panchayats, which is quoted hereunder for quick recapitulation: “243K. Elections to the Panchayats.--(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine: Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1). (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats." 40. Article 243-O enunciates a clear bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters and begins with a non obstante clause: "243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.]" 41. With such express provisions, as enunciated in Article 243O, it is clear that any election to any Panchayat cannot be subject to scrutiny except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 42. With such express provisions, as enunciated in Article 243O, it is clear that any election to any Panchayat cannot be subject to scrutiny except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 42. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is amply clear that elections to the Panchayats are to be conducted by the State Election Commission and under provisions of Article 243K(4), the State Legislature is enshrined with the solemn duty on making laws and subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the Legislature may make laws relating to or in connection with the elections to the Panchayats. Therefore, any law which is made by the State Legislature has to follow the constitutional mandate. 43. Coming to the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, Section 136 of the Act deals with the disqualification for membership to a Gram Panchayat for election or after election. Section 136 is quoted hereunder: "136. Therefore, any law which is made by the State Legislature has to follow the constitutional mandate. 43. Coming to the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, Section 136 of the Act deals with the disqualification for membership to a Gram Panchayat for election or after election. Section 136 is quoted hereunder: "136. Disqualification for Membership.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person- (a) is not a citizen of India ; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State : Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years; (c) is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority; (d) is in service of any such institution receiving aid from Central or State Government or any local authority; (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal court whether within or out of India to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for good behavior under section 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (i) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Panchayat. (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices, (k) [x x x] Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after six years of general election. (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices, (k) [x x x] Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after six years of general election. (2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of Panchayat at any level including Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti or Adhyaksh of Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Kutchary or Panch of Gram Kutchahry was disqualified before election or has incurred disqualification after election as provided in Article 243-F of the Constitution of India and subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Section 135 or sub-Section (1) of Section 136, the question shall be referred for the decision of the State Election Commissioner. The matter of disqualification before or after election may be brought to the notice of State Election Commission in the form of complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also suo motu cognizance of such disqualification and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard: Provided that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petition subject matter of which is purely an election dispute such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. in accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act."[Substituted vide Section 16 of Amdt. Act 10 of 2009] (Emphasis Supplied) 44. The proviso to Section 136 also brings about an express ban on the Election Commission as it clearly states that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petitions subject-matter of which is purely an election dispute such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. in accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. 45. A glance through Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is also explicit in its pronunciation that the election to any office of Panchayat or a Gram Kutchchari shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed. Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is quoted hereunder: "137. 45. A glance through Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is also explicit in its pronunciation that the election to any office of Panchayat or a Gram Kutchchari shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed. Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act is quoted hereunder: "137. Election Petition.-- (1) the election to any office of a Panchayat or a Gram Katchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed : Provided that if an election to any office of a Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchahry is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchary is situated and if the election to any office of Panchayat Samiti or to a Zila Parishad is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, is situated. (2)"Parties to the petition.-- A petitioner shall join as a respondent to his petition-- (a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition." 46. What really is then the import of Section 136 (2), which was brought about by the Amendment Act 10 of 2009, and which expanded the jurisdiction of the State Election Commissioner, as the matter of disqualification before or after election could be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. This thus means that apart from the forum provided for under the Act, the State Election Commission has been made an additional forum as even after the expiry of thirty days mandatory period for seeking relief by way of filing an application for setting aside an election, the party could move a complaint before an "Alternative Redressal Bureau", namely, the State Election Commissioner. 47. 47. The role of the Election Commission and the Election Commissioner has been spelt out in Section 123 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Section 123 reads as hereunder: "123. State Election Commission - (1) There shall be a State Election Commission for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayat bodies in the State under this Act and the rules made thereunder. The Commission shall consist of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor." (2) The conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine: Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Government shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such officers and staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission under this Act." 48. A comparative study of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 spells out a similar provision, which is evident from Section 2(90) of the aforementioned Act : "2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- ........................................ ........................................ (90) "State Election Commission" means the State Election Commission constituted under section 123 of the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 2006 read with Article 243-ZA of the Constitution of India." Article 243ZA of the Constitution of India provides with regard to elections to Municipalities, which runs as follows: "243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities.--(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in article 243K. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities." 49. Article 243V of the Constitution of India provides for disqualification of membership and is quoted hereunder: "243V. Disqualifications for membership. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities." 49. Article 243V of the Constitution of India provides for disqualification of membership and is quoted hereunder: "243V. Disqualifications for membership. -- (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Municipality- (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. (2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Municipality has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide." 50. Coming to the disqualification enunciated in the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, Section 18 deals with the disqualifications which would render a person ineligible for elections. Section 18 of the Municipal Act runs as follows : "18. Disqualifications.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as member of the Municipality if such person - (a) is not a citizen of India; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law, for the time being in force, for the purpose of elections to the Legislature of the State: ["Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years.") (c) is in the service of the Central or State Government or any local Authority; (d) is in the service of any such institution receiving aids from the Central or State Government or any local authority. (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of the Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal Court, whether within or without India, to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for keeping good behaviour under section-109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; or absconding being an accused in a criminal case for more than six months. (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (I) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Municipality; (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices; Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after 6 (six) years of general election; (k) if he has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election is held. (l) has been wilfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and functions or abuses the power vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or become physically or mentally incapacitated for performing his duties (m) If he has more than two living children:- provided that a person having more than two children on or upto the expiry of one year of the commencement of the Act, shall not be deemed to be disqualified. (n) Has been absent from three consecutive meetings or sitting of the Municipality without having previously obtained permission form the councillors at a meeting. (n) Has been absent from three consecutive meetings or sitting of the Municipality without having previously obtained permission form the councillors at a meeting. [Substituted by Act 7 of 2011]["(2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of a Municipality at any level was disqualified before election or has incurred disqualification after election as provided in Article-243-V of the Constitution of India and subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in section-475 or the subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in subsection (1) of section-18 the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suo-motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard."] (3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of a Municipality, is or becomes a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council; or is or becomes a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch, his seat in the Municipality shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or Panchayat, as the case may be." 51. Section 475 of the Bihar Municipal Act is as follows: "475. Qualification for Membership.- Every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Municipality constituency shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Municipality : Provided that in the case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women, no person who is not a member of any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or is not a woman, as the case may be, shall be qualified to be elected to such seat. However, Section 476 is purely clarificatory and asserts as such: "476. However, Section 476 is purely clarificatory and asserts as such: "476. Election Petition.-(1) The election to any office of a Municipality shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed : Provided that if an election to any office of a Nagar Panchayat is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Nagar Panchayat is situated and if the election to any office of Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such Municipality is situated. (2) Parties to the petition - A petitioner shall join as a respondent to his petition- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) Any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition." 52. Section 478 of the Bihar Municipal Act refers to bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. It is as follows: "478. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act -- (a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243 ZA of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act." 53. So far as the elections within the scope of Bihar Municipal Act is concerned, Section 478 of the Bihar Municipal Act refers to interference by Court in electoral matters. Section 479 thereof details the grounds for declaring election to be void, which is extracted hereunder: "479. So far as the elections within the scope of Bihar Municipal Act is concerned, Section 478 of the Bihar Municipal Act refers to interference by Court in electoral matters. Section 479 thereof details the grounds for declaring election to be void, which is extracted hereunder: "479. Grounds for declaring election to be void - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion - (a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the Prescribed Authority, any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then the Prescribed Authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void." 54. The Act also clearly defines the grounds on which a candidate other than a returned candidate may be declared to have been elected, which has been cited under Section 480 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 whereas Section 481 relates to "Corrupt Practices", which are quoted hereunder: "480. Grounds on which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected - (1) If any person who has filed an election petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the Prescribed Authority is of opinion- (a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the Prescribed Authority shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected. (2) The decision of the Prescribed Authority shall be final. 481. (2) The decision of the Prescribed Authority shall be final. 481. Corrupt Practices.- The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act- (i) bribery as defined in clause (1) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Central Act 48 of 1951), for the time being in force; (ii) undue influences as defined in clause (2) of the said section for the time being in force; (iii) that appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to national symbols such as the national flag or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (iv) the promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the election of that candidate to or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate; (v) the publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of candidate or his agent of any statement of fact which is false and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate or in relation to the candidature or withdrawal of any candidature being statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election; (vi) the hiring or procuring whether on payment or otherwise, any vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his agent, or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any voter (other than the candidate himself, the member of his family or his agent) to or from any polling station provided in accordance with the rules made under this Act : Provided that the use of any public transport vehicle or vessel or railway carriage by any voter at his own cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause. Explanation.- In this clause, the word "vehicle" means any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise whether used for the drawing of other vehicles or otherwise. (vii) the holding of any meeting at which intoxicating liquors are served; (viii) the issuing of any circular, placard or poster having reference to the election which does not bear the name and address of the printer and publisher thereof; (ix) any other practice which the Government may by rule specify to be a corrupt practice." 55. Section 482 is with regard to the orders as to corrupt practices which are based on the finding of the prescribed authority and communication thereof is to be made under Section 483 of the said Act to the District Magistrate or the State Election Commission. Section 482 and 483 of the Act is quoted herein below: "482. Order as to corrupt practices.- The corrupt practices referred to under this Act shall entail disqualification for membership of any local authority for a period of five years counting from the date on which the finding of the prescribed authority as to such practices takes effect under this Act. 483. Communication of orders.- The prescribed authority under section 482 of this Act shall after announcing the orders made under this Act send a copy thereof to the District Magistrate/State Election Commission." 56. Thus we can clearly see that it is only the "prescribed authority" under the Act who is to take action with regard to the elections to the Municipality. The procedure which is to be adopted has been enunciated in the Rules framed thereunder and are contained in Rules 102 to 110. Rule 109 herein clearly states that election petition filed before the authority prescribed under Rule 103 shall hear and dispose of the election petitions in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shall apply in hearing of the election petition. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "102. Election Petitions. - No election to the office of the Municipal Councillor, Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor under these Rules shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with this part. 103. Presentation of Election Petition. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "102. Election Petitions. - No election to the office of the Municipal Councillor, Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor under these Rules shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with this part. 103. Presentation of Election Petition. - (1) An election petition by a candidate or elector, calling in question any election shall be presented, in case of election of Councillor or Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor in the Nagar Panchayat, before the Munsif and in case of election of Councillor, Chief Councillor or Deputy Chief Councillor in the Municipal Council/Municipal Corporation, before the sub-judge, under whose jurisdiction the ward or the Municipality, as the case may be, is situated. (2) Such election petition shall be filed within thirty days from the date of publication of the results of Councillors or Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor, as the case may be. (3) When the period prescribed by sub-rule (2) of the presentation of an election petition expires on a day which is a public holiday within the meaning of Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or has been notified by the State Government to be observed as a holiday in Government offices or courts, the petition shall be considered as having been presented in due time, if it is presented on the next succeeding day which is neither such a public holiday nor a day so notified. 104. Reliefs to be claimed and grounds therefore. - The petitioner may if he so desires, in addition to calling in question the election of a returned candidate, claim a declaration that he himself or other candidate has been duly elected; but such a declaration shall only be claimed on one or other of the following grounds, namely (a) that the petitioner or such other candidate in fact received a majority of valid votes; or (b) that, but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt or illegal practices, the petitioner such other candidate would have obtained a majority of valid votes; or (c) that, but; for improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, the petitioner or such other candidate would have been entitled to be declared to have been duly elected. 105. Contents of Election Petitions. 105. Contents of Election Petitions. - (1) An election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall where necessary, be divided into paragraph numbered consecutively. It shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of pleadings. (2) (a) The petition shall be accompanied by a list signed and verified in like manner setting forth full particulars of any corrupt or illegal practice which the petitioner alleges, including as full statements possible as to the names of the parties alleged to have committed any corrupt or illegal practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. (b) The designated authority in rule 103 may, upon such terms as to costs and otherwise as he may direct at any time allow the particulars included in the said list to be amended, or order such further and better particulars in regard to any matter referred to therein to be furnished as may in his opinion, be necessary for the purpose of ensuring a fair and effectual trial of the petition: Provided that the designated authority shall not by means of any such amendment allow particulars to be furnished, or any corrupt or illegal practice other than a corrupt or illegal practice set forth in the list furnished by the petitioner under clause (a) of sub-rule (2). 106. Parties to election petition. - The petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition- (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidate is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner; and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates, and, (b) Any other candidate against whom allegation of any corrupt practice is made in the petition. 107. Court Fee. - At the time of presentation of the petition the petitioner shall deposit with it a sum of two thousand five hundred rupees in cash with respect to the post of Councillor or Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor from Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council and a sum of rupees five thousand with respect to the post of Councillor or Chief Councillor/Deputy Chief Councillor from Municipal Corporation. 108. 108. Withdrawal of Election Petition. - The Election Petition cannot be withdrawn without the order of the Court: Provided that if there be more than one plaintiff in the election petition then the election petition cannot be withdrawn without unanimous consent. 109. Disposal of Election Petition. - The Authority prescribed under rule 103 shall hear and dispose of the Election Petitions in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Indian Evidence Act 1872 shall apply in hearing of Election Petition. 110. Copy of the order on Election Petition to be made available. - The copy of the order passed on the election petition by the Court/Prescribed authority will be made available to the District Election Officer and the Commission." 57. It is thus evident that the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act and the Rules framed clearly chalk out the manner and procedure with regard to Disqualification Disputes and for the Election Disputes falling under the "Corrupt Practice" category the procedure to be adopted under Section 478(b) has been described under the Act as stated herein above. 58. As such, I am of the clear opinion that prior to the 2001 Amendment, the State Election Commission was having no such power endowed in it under the Bihar Municipal Act to entertain election disputes relating to corrupt practices and cannot transgress its jurisdiction once the election has concluded and the only remedy when engaged with any corrupt practice, the matter is to be referred to the prescribed authority under the Rules for its determination. 59. Reverting back to the enunciation made in Section 18(2), the Act clarifies that if any member of the Municipality at any level was "disqualified" before election or has incurred disqualification after election as provided under Article 243-V of the Constitution of India and is subject to any disqualification mentioned in sub-Section (1) of Section 18, the question shall be referred for the decision of the State Election Commissioner. It thus appears that what was introduced and substituted in the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, vide substituted Act 7 of 2011, was something similar to what has been done in sub-Section (2) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. Thus, the disqualification in Section 18 has to be read in conjunction with Section 475 of the Bihar Municipal Act, which relates to qualification of membership. Thus, the disqualification in Section 18 has to be read in conjunction with Section 475 of the Bihar Municipal Act, which relates to qualification of membership. Thus two different provisions have been carved out in this Act, one relating to qualification and disqualification and the other relating to corrupt practices which have been clearly enumerated in the Act and the Rules. 60. Article 173 of the Constitution of India deals with the qualification for membership of the State Legislature, the same is quoted hereunder: "173. Qualification for membership of the State Legislature.--A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he- [(a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule;] (b) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than twentyfive years of age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative Council, not less than thirty years of age; and (c) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament." Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 further enunciates the qualification for membership of State Legislatures, the same is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "5. Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly.- A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State unless- (a) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of that State, he is a member of any of those castes or of those tribes, as the case may be, and is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State; (b) in the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous district of Assam, he is a member of a [Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district] and is an elector for the Assembly constituency in which such seat or any other seat is reserved for that district; and (c) in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State: [Provided that for the period referred to in clause (2) of article 371-A, a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill any seat allocated to the Tuensang district in the Legislative Assembly of Nagaland unless he is a member of the regional council referred to in that article.]" 61. The Disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures are enshrined in Sections 7 and 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: "7. Definitions.- In this Chapter-- (a)"appropriate Government" means in relation to any disqualification for being chosen as or for being a member of either House of Parliament, the Central Government, and in relation to any disqualification for being chosen as or for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State, the State Government; (b)"disqualified" means disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State [under the provisions of this Chapter, and on no other ground]." 62. Section 11-A of the Representation of the People Act speaks of disqualification arising out of conviction and corrupt practices whereas Section 11-B relates to removal of disqualifications, wherein the Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under subsection (1) of Section 11-A. The provisions in this Act are specific and leave no room for any speculation. The role of the Commission has been well defined. 63. The role of the Commission has been well defined. 63. The bar to interference by courts in electoral matters is enunciated in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which is quoted hereunder : "329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-- [Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution] (a).................................. (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." 64. A comparative analysis of all the provisions quoted herein above clearly reveals that in each of the Acts, the Constitution had clarified that no election viz. either to the House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State shall be called in question, be it an election under the Representation of the People Act or the election of a Member of any Municipal Body under the Bihar Municipal Act or the election of the Member of the Panchayat under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. It thus implies that the returned candidate democratically elected cannot be dislodged and their election shall not be called in question in any Court except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under the respective Acts. 65. A question arose as to whether such a bar could operate so as to render the High Court powerless in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was dealt with by the Apex Court in (K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamican & Anr, (1999) 4 SCC 526 ), wherein it has been held that the High Court's jurisdiction, unless barred, is wide and covers all violations of the law or the Constitution when recourse cannot be had to other remedies provided by law, wherein at paragraph 27 it was held as follows: "27........... Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in the widest possible terms and unless there is a clear bar to jurisdiction of the High Court its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised when there is any act which is against any provision of law or violative of constitutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act for the appropriate relief. In circumstances like the present one the bar of the Article 329(b) will not come into play when the case falls under Articles 191 and 193 and the whole of the election process is over." 66. Having dealt with the strength of the provisions of the respective enactments, the Court has been persuaded into answering the reference in the light of the submissions of the parties. 67. Shri Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, who has led the arguments and has appeared on behalf of the Democratically Elected Representatives, has derided the power endowed on the State Election Commission, which has now been empowered with additional teeth by way of amendment in Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The main thrust of the submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel is that the order passed by the State Election Commission, rendering the candidate as "disqualified", runs counter to Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Sections 137 and 139 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. He submitted that if the same said power is permitted to be perpetuated, the constitutional provisions would be rendered otiose and such an interpretation would have far-reaching consequences, giving the Election Commission an unbridled power, which was never the object of the proposed amendment. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Amendment Act 10 of 2009 by which Section 136(2) has been brought in, clearly enunciated beyond doubt that the Election Commissioner is entitled to adjudicate in the event of a complaint filed before it raising any question of disqualification of an elected candidate before or after the election. However, such power has been circumscribed within limits of the proviso appended thereto. However, such power has been circumscribed within limits of the proviso appended thereto. By virtue of the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 136, the intention of the Legislature in bringing about such amendment and conferring the power on the Election Commissioner has been confined only to the question of disqualification before or after the dispute, and does not extend to empower it to decide "pure election disputes" (emphasis supplied), such as corrupt practices enumerated under Section 141, improper rejection of the nomination form etc. Learned Senior Counsel has further tried to impress on this Court that the State Election Commissioner can only be allowed to go into the issue of disqualification and thus these issues of disqualification per se do not constitute a pure election dispute. It was also contended that seriously disputed matters with regard to the issue of disqualification, wherein decision could be taken only on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties could not be adjudicated and in such instances involving disputed question of disqualification, it was the competent Court alone which could decide the issue based on evidence placed before it. Drawing the attention of the Court, he has taken us through the provisions of Article 243-F of the Constitution. Clause-1 of Article 243-F speaks about the disqualification of any person for being chosen as a member of a Panchayat, if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned, provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years of age if he has attained the age of 21 years. Article 243-B further states that if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature. Clause 2 further states that if any question arises as to whether a member has become disqualified subject to any of the qualifications mentioned in Clause 1, the question shall be referred for the decision of such authorities in such manner as the Legislature of the State may by law provide. 68. Clause 2 further states that if any question arises as to whether a member has become disqualified subject to any of the qualifications mentioned in Clause 1, the question shall be referred for the decision of such authorities in such manner as the Legislature of the State may by law provide. 68. Learned Senior Counsel has further tried to draw a line at this point and has tried to persuade this Court by submitting that Article 243-F does not speak of permitting the State Election Commission to deal with the question of disqualification when it speaks of such authority and thus the State Government too cannot confer upon the Election Commission to decide issue of disqualification which stands covered in terms of Section 135 of Act 2006. Steering his arguments further, Shri Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/petitioners (unsettled candidates) submitted that Article 243-K Clause 4 of the Constitution endows the State Legislature to make provisions for all matters relating to or in connection with the election to the Panchayats to be dealt with by the State Legislature in such matters relating to or in connection with the election of Panchayats and thus the legislature can well make laws relating to or in connection with the elections to the Panchayats. This power of the Legislature is undisputed but for the subsequent Article 243- O which creates a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. Learned Senior Counsel has further referred to Article 243-O(b) which begins with a non obstante clause----"notwithstanding anything in this Constitution"----- (a)......................................... (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State." 69. He thus submitted that clause (b) of Article 243-O has clearly circumscribed the powers of any such authority as the non obstante clause is furthered by a directive "shall" wherein it has been categorically specified that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by way of an Election Petition and no other form or manner can be used for placing a challenge to any election to the Panchayat save and except by way of an election petition. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if any such authority is inferred to have been granted to the State Election Commission, it would amount to a clear violation of the Constitutional mandate and the election of a returned candidate would be put to test before an authority which is shorn of the trappings of the Court and is not to take/lead the evidence before itself. According to him, such a power on the Election Commissioner would amount to not only relegating the authority of the Courts in deciding "the purely election disputes" but would amount to conferment of such power on the Election Commissioner and would consequently lead to undoing the election of a democratically elected candidate by permitting him to traverse through the disputed and contentious issue of disqualification. Such power is ordinarily under the domain of the Courts empowered to decide the election disputes. When the broader meaning is attached as disclosed in sub-Section (2) of Section 136, the State Election Commissioner would presume the power to decide even the question of disqualification as referred to in Section 135 which is but a pre-election dispute and for such dispute under Section 135, if there was a dispute with regard to possessing the qualification of the returned candidate, an opportunity was always available to the aggrieved person to file an election petition within a period of 30 days from the date of declaration of result. This could be well dealt with in accordance with the recital as contained in Section 139(1) Clause (1)(a). Thus, it was only the Election Tribunal dealing with an election petition which could deal with any disqualification mentioned in Section 135 and it cannot be said that the State Election Commission has been conferred with jurisdiction of dealing with the matter of disqualification of a candidate in terms of Section 135. Consequently the Appeals/Writ petitions in which the elections of democratically elected candidates have been upset need to be allowed by determining the scope of the amended provisions of Section 136(2), as discussed above. 70. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Giri has referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court cited in (Ghulam Mohiuddin Vs. Consequently the Appeals/Writ petitions in which the elections of democratically elected candidates have been upset need to be allowed by determining the scope of the amended provisions of Section 136(2), as discussed above. 70. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Giri has referred to a decision of the Allahabad High Court cited in (Ghulam Mohiuddin Vs. Election Tribunal for Town Area Sakit and another, (1959) AIR Allahabad 357), wherein the Full Bench while deciding an election case has held that the election petition challenging the validity of the election on ground that names of certain persons who were not qualified for vote had been entered in the electoral roll. While in the said case the Full Bench while considering the power of the Election Tribunal to determine such question held as follows : "It was not open to the Election Tribunal to determine whether the persons whose names were entered in the electoral roll possessed the necessary qualifications for the registration of their names in the electoral roll. Hence the order of the Election Tribunal holding that the electoral roll was not final and conclusive at the time of hearing the election petition was erroneous and must be quashed by a writ of certiorari." As per M.L.Chaturvedi, J. at paragraphs 24 and 26, it has been held as follows : "24. It would thus appear that the Representation of the People Act has separately provided for the conditions which a person must fulfil before he would be entitled to have his name entered in the electoral roll and the disqualifications which would disqualify him from having his name so entered, even if he fulfils the conditions. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the entries in the electoral roll are final and not open to challenge in an election petition, in so far as they indicate that a person has fulfilled the conditions or qualifications for having his name brought on the electoral roll, but they are not final and are open to scrutiny by an election tribunal in so far as the allegation that the persons are disqualified from voting is concerned. In short, the electoral roll is to be deemed final and conclusive as far as the fulfilment of qualifications of a voter is concerned, but it is not to be deemed final and conclusive by the election tribunal so far as the disqualifications attaching to such persons are concerned. I think that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel. 26. the law laid down above still holds the field in England and it is well settled there that it is not open to a Tribunal which has to enquire into elections to consider the correctness of the entry in a register of votes, except in so far as to see whether the person whose name is entered was prohibited from voting by any status or by the common law of Parliament. I think the Representation of the People Act has adopted the same principle and that is the reason why separate provisions have been made laying down the conditions of registration in the electoral roll for Assembly constituency and those laying down disqualifications for registry in the roll Section 19 of the Act deals with the former and S. 16 with the latter. As far as the preparation of the electoral roll itself is concerned, the authority responsible for its preparation has got to consider both matters. It has to see whether a citizen fulfils the conditions of registration and also whether he is disqualified for registration in the roll. There was a reason for providing for the above two matters under two separate sections of the Act so far as the preparation of the roll was concerned. It could easily have been said under S. 16 that a person shall be disqualified for registration in the electoral roll if he was less than 21 years of age and if he did not ordinarily reside in the constituency. The only reason for making two separate provisions about qualifications and disqualifications, in my opinion is that the two have been treated differently, as in England, so far as the binding nature of the entry in the electoral roll is concerned. The only reason for making two separate provisions about qualifications and disqualifications, in my opinion is that the two have been treated differently, as in England, so far as the binding nature of the entry in the electoral roll is concerned. If a person's name has been entered in the electoral roll, as it has been finally prepared, the entry would be taken to be conclusive proof of the fact that the person fulfils the conditions, namely, that he was not less than 21 years of age and was ordinarily resident in the constituency. But the position with respect to the disqualifications enumerated in S. 16 of the Representation of the People Act is different. In spite of the entry in the electoral roll, it is open to an electoral tribunal to see whether the person was really disqualified for registration in the roll. Finality has been given to the decision of the Officer preparing the roll in so far as the fulfilment of conditions of registration is concerned. But it has not been considered desirable to extend the same finality to the decision on the subject of disqualifications; as the latter is a more serious matter. The U.P. Town Areas Act is quite explicit on the point. Section 6-F(1) says, "No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any ward, shall be entitled to vote in that ward." He thus submits that the provisions as carved out in Sections 135 and 136 are clearly on two different propositions recited by the Legislature for the purposes of distinguishing "qualification" and "disqualification" and can be interpreted in the light of the aforementioned judgment. 71. Another citation placed before this Court is the case of Shyamdeo Prasad Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 . In the aforementioned judgment, the Apex Court while dealing with the question of qualification and disqualification has carved out a distinction between "disqualification" and "not being qualified" wherein at paragraph 25 and 26, it was held as follows: "25. It is true that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna was not justified in sitting over the objections laying serious challenge to the legality of enrolment of a large number of voters in the electoral roll. It is true that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna was not justified in sitting over the objections laying serious challenge to the legality of enrolment of a large number of voters in the electoral roll. Such objections should have been promptly dealt with and disposed of. Withholding of dealing with the objections on the ground that the officer did not have time enough available at his disposal was hardly any justification for the inaction on the part of the officer. The failure on the part of the officer to dispose of the objections has laid to an allegation being made in the election petition that the officer was obliging the ruling party in the State of Bihar as it stood to gain by inclusion of the names of ineligible voters in the electoral roll. Such delay in disposal of the objections has to be deprecated. Preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls is an ongoing process. A meaningful democracy means participation of all eligible citizens in the exercise of right to vote and exclusion of ineligible voters therefrom. Such goal achieved, the result of election would reflect the will of the people. Watchful and alert citizenry assisted by responsible and responsive bureaucracy entrusted with the task as to electoral rolls is needed to reach the said goal. The need to hear and decide claims for inclusion in or exclusion from electoral rolls promptly and objectively, hardly needs to be emphasised. However, we have already held this could not have been a ground for avoiding the election and we leave the matter at that. 26. To sum up we are of the opinion that inclusion of person or persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls, though they were not qualified to be so enrolled, cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A person enrolled in the electoral list by an authority empowered by law to prepare an electoral roll or to include a name therein is entitled to cast a vote unless disqualified under sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A person enrolled in the electoral list by an authority empowered by law to prepare an electoral roll or to include a name therein is entitled to cast a vote unless disqualified under sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. A person enrolled in the electoral roll cannot be excluded from exercising his right to cast vote on the ground that he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement as laid down in Section 19 or 27(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950." He further submitted that the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court has been followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court also in the case of Roop Lal Mehta vs. Dhan Singh, (1968) AIR(P&H) 1 (FB). 72. Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others, (1961) AIR SC 1170, wherein at paragraph 9 and 10, it has been stated as follows : "9. There will be complete harmony however if we hold instead that C1. 5(a) will apply in all other cases of proposed dismissal or discharge except where an inquiry is pending within the meaning of C1. 23. We reach the same result by applying another well known rule of construction that general provisions yield to special provisions. The learned Attorney-General seemed to suggest that while this rule of construction is applicable to resolve the conflict between the general provision in one Act and the special provision in another Act, the rule cannot apply in resolving a conflict between general and special provisions in the same legislative instrument. This suggestion does not find support in either principle or authority. The rule that general provisions should yield to specific provisions is not an arbitrary principle made by lawyers and judges but springs from the common understanding of men and women that when the same person gives two directions one covering a large number of matters in general and another to only some of them his intention is that these latter directions should prevail as regards these while as regards all the rest the earlier direction should have effect. In Pretty v. Solly, (1859) 53 ER 1032 quoted in Craies on Statute Law at p. 206, 6th Edition) Romilly, M.R., mentioned the rule thus:- "The rule is that whenever there is a particular enactment and a general enactment in the same statute and the latter, taken in its most comprehensive sense, would overrule the former, the particular enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect only the other parts of the statue to which it may properly apply." The rule has been applied as between different provisions of the same statute in numerous cases some of which only need be mentioned: De Winton v. Brecon, 1858 28 LJCh 598, Churchill v. Crease,1828 5 Bring 177, United States v. Chase,1889 135 US 255, and Carroll v. Greenwich Ins. Co.,1905 199 US 401. 10. Applying this rule of construction that in cases of conflict between a specific provision and a general provision the specific provision prevails over the general provision and the general provision applies only to such cases which are not covered by the specific provision, we must hold that C1. 5(a) has no application in a case where the special provisions of C1. 23 are applicable." He thus submits that the specific provisions that the rule applied to all conflicts between different provisions in different statutes as well as in the statute. In the instant case, there being specific law with regard to the qualification (Section 135) and disqualification (Section 136), there cannot be any room for controversy as Legislature clearly inserted two different provisions to distinguish between them and it would be inappropriate to mingle the two as the end effect would then render the entire provisions redundant. Learned Senior Counsel has then referred to different judgments of this Court, wherein different interpretations have been given which has led to dichotomy in its interpretation and an authoritative pronouncement in this regard would enable to clear the mist which has emanated therefrom. 73. Shri S.B.K. Mangalam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of one of the appellants has tried to distinguish between the pre-election disqualification and the issue of qualification in terms of Section 135. 73. Shri S.B.K. Mangalam, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of one of the appellants has tried to distinguish between the pre-election disqualification and the issue of qualification in terms of Section 135. According to him, such pre-election disqualifications and or issue of disqualification in terms of Section 135 would be disputes within the meaning of Section 139(1)(a) of Act 2006 and will be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts, which would be entertaining an election petition. However, so far as the post-selection disqualification is concerned, he submitted that the State Election Commissioner may decide the complaint or even take suo motu cognizance of the same so as to render the returned candidate disqualified if he is in possession of clinching evidence of disqualification. However, seriously contested matters of disqualification for which evidence is required to be led by the respective parties cannot be dealt with by him nor can he arrive at a finding for rendering disqualified "an elected candidate". It was further contended by Mr. Mangalam that such a decision could only be taken by a competent Civil Court as Rule 106 read with Rule 111 of Rules 2006 clearly depicts that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as also the Indian Evidence Act shall apply in relation to an election petition. He thus submitted that only Section 139 of Act 2006 provides for the grounds for declaring the election to be void. 74. Learned counsel Shri Mrigank Mauli appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.507 of 2013, which has also been referred to the present Full Bench, has tried to draw out a distinction between the three different situations, namely, "qualification", "disqualification" and "not qualified" (in proviso). According to Shri Mrigank Mauli, Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 is a Section which deals with qualification and lack of qualification. He has tried to juxtapose Section 135 with Section 136 with special reference to the fact that while Section 135 refers to qualification for membership, Section 136(1) deals with disqualification of Membership and begins with a non obstante clause. He thus submits that Section 136(2) confers power on the State Election Commission to refer to disputes relating to "disqualification having been incurred before election or after election under Section 136 and also the disqualification provided under Section 135". He thus submits that Section 136(2) confers power on the State Election Commission to refer to disputes relating to "disqualification having been incurred before election or after election under Section 136 and also the disqualification provided under Section 135". Further, proviso to Section 136(2) of the Act forbids the State Election Commission to entertain any complaint or petition, subject-matter of which is an election dispute in accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. It was thus submitted by the learned counsel that Section 135 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 uses three different words and phrases viz. "qualification", "disqualification" and "not being qualified." It is well settled that the Legislature is deemed not to waste its words or anything in vain and if such conclusions are drawn and a construction which attributes redundancy to the words used by the Legislature, such interpretation cannot be accepted. Each word in the enactment must be allowed to play its role and when the Legislature consciously used the words "not being qualified" under circumstances where a person/candidate lacks qualification, the same cannot be treated as a disqualification and confer power under Section 136(2) upon the Election Commissioner. In this context, learned counsel referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Brigadier P.S. Gill, (2012) 4 SCC 463 , paragraph 17 of which runs as follows: "17. Each word used in the enactment must be allowed to play its role howsoever significant and insignificant the same may be in achieving the legislative intent and promoting legislative object. Although it is unnecessary to refer to any decisions on the subject, we may briefly recount some of the pronouncements of this Court in which the expression "subject to" has been interpreted." Arguments of the Election Commission 75. The present reference has been contested by the State Election Commission that the question of disqualification of any elected representative should not ordinarily be called to question save and except as provided by the provisions of the Statute. Shri Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission contended that the bar contained in Article 243-O of Constitution of India was specific and a writ petition was not maintainable. Shri Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Election Commission contended that the bar contained in Article 243-O of Constitution of India was specific and a writ petition was not maintainable. According to the provisions, as have been detailed herein above, it is not open to challenge any election of the elected public representative save and except as provided by the statute. So far the power of the High Court in issuing a Writ of quo warranto is concerned, it is a power which is not an ordinary power to be exercised by the High Court, especially where there are disputed questions of facts. 76. Shri Amit Shrivastava appearing on behalf of the Election Commission further contended that the High Court may be well justified in entertaining such a writ and issuing order only if it is conclusively held that the elected public representative was ineligible or disqualified to contest the election or had incurred disqualification at a later point of time. 77. Learned counsel further submitted, referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bharati Reddy vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2018) 6 SCC 162 , at paragraph 18, in which it was held as follows: "18. It is indisputable that the post of Adhyaksha of Zila Panchayat is a public office in relation to which a writ of quo warranto can be issued, if the post is occupied by a person who is not eligible to be so appointed or incurs disqualification to continue to occupy the post. Indeed, when a statutory remedy is provided for removal of disqualified person from the public office who is allegedly usurper of public office, the writ court would be ordinarily slow in interfering, much less, issuing a writ of quo warranto." Further, in order to clarify the situation at paragraph 27 of the aforesaid judgment while referring to the issuance of the caste certificate and income certificate which was left open to the Fact Finding Committee being the Caste Verification Committee, it was observed as follows: "27. According to the appellant, as long as the income and caste certificate is valid and in force, which has only been doubted by the High Court having been issued by Respondent 5 in a mortal hurry, the matter must rest at that. According to the appellant, as long as the income and caste certificate is valid and in force, which has only been doubted by the High Court having been issued by Respondent 5 in a mortal hurry, the matter must rest at that. We find force in the submission of the appellant that all these issues will be the subject-matter during the enquiry into the question of validity of the stated income and caste certificate, which is pending before the Caste Verification Committee. Even the High Court was conscious of this position and perhaps, therefore, did not quash or set aside on the basis of assumption, inferences or suspicion regarding the factum of fulfilment of eligibility criteria. Being an extraordinary power, ordinarily such a writ ought to be issued only on the basis of indisputable facts leading to a singular conclusion that the incumbent was in fact or in law disqualified to occupy the public office or has incurred disqualification to continue to remain therein. Only whence such a person would fall within the description of a usurper of public office without legal authority. On the other hand, for a person possession an income and caste certificate issued by the jurisdictional authority and so long as it is valid and in force, in fact and in law, treating such a person as usurper of the public office and occupying it without legal authority, cannot be countenanced. In our opinion, the High Court had plainly erred in engaging itself in an enquiry into a prohibited area which is already the subject-matter of the proceedings pending before the Caste Verification Committee, without realising that the observations made by it were inherently bound to influence the Committee from taking a just and proper decision in accordance with law irrespective of its observation to decide without being influenced by its decision." 78. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission Mr. Amit Shrivastava submitted that the legal position existing after the amendment in Section 136(2) of the Act was considered in the case of Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar & Ors. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission Mr. Amit Shrivastava submitted that the legal position existing after the amendment in Section 136(2) of the Act was considered in the case of Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) which stood supported in the case of Shushila Devi decided by a Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.1158 of 2012, wherein this Court has again upheld the power of the District Magistrate to examine the veracity of a caste certificate on a direction given by the State Election Commission while adjudicating a complaint case filed under Section 136(2) of the Act. He thus contended that the State Election Commission having been endowed with the power after the amendment, its jurisdiction could not be confined on the basis of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), which had earlier been followed by this Court in the judgment in Farzana Sabaff arising out of C.W.J.C. No.4604 of 2008, which held to the contrary. 79. Learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission further submitted that such a power bestowed on the Commissioner permits him to decide on the question of disqualification which has occurred after election because in several instances, an elected candidate may have suppressed the facts which, if exposed, would materially affect the election. For example, if a returned candidate had concealed his disqualifications at the time of election, but such disqualification came to the notice of any complainant or the State Election Commission, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing an election petition, the party would not be left remediless and the Election Commission could examine under such emergent circumstances that a returned candidate was either disqualified at the time of election itself, or had incurred disqualification after election and could not be permitted to be holding the post for a longer period of time. He thus submitted that such an amendment was fully justified in empowering the State Election Commission to decide disputes, which were not "purely an election dispute" in terms of Section 136(2). He further pointed out that the proviso was clear and distinct and prescribed the situation in which Section 136(2) would not apply by referring to the terms "purely an election dispute", especially when it related to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. 80. He further pointed out that the proviso was clear and distinct and prescribed the situation in which Section 136(2) would not apply by referring to the terms "purely an election dispute", especially when it related to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. 80. The learned Additional Advocate General Mr. P.K. Verma has also supported the aforementioned amendment and stated that the State Election Commission was well empowered under the amended provisions of Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act to entertain complaint with regard to the "disqualification of an elected candidate ..........." 81. Learned counsel for the State submitted that Section 136(2) is clear in its enunciation as what is sought to be achieved by the aforementioned amendment to Section 136(2), brought about by the 2009 Amendment Act, is that the State Election Commissioner has been empowered to enter into an issue of disqualification of a person where such disqualification existed from a date prior to the election. It envisages that if any member of the Panchayat, be it a Mukhiya of a Gram Panchayat, a Pramukh of a Panchayat Samiti or Adhyaksha of a Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of a Gram Kutchchari or Panch of a Gram Kutchchari was disqualified before election or even has incurred such disqualification after election as provided in Article 243F of the Constitution of India and also Section 135 or sub-section (1) of Section 136, the said question shall be referred for the decision of the Election Commissioner. Learned AAG-3 reiterated that it matters not whether the disqualification has occurred before or after the election but such disqualification may be brought to the notice of the Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. Furthermore, the State Election Commission has also been empowered to take suo motu cognizance of such disqualification and decides such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties. The proviso to said amendment clarifies that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petition, the matter of which is purely an election dispute, such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of the nomination etc. being in tune with the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 137 of the Act. The proviso to said amendment clarifies that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petition, the matter of which is purely an election dispute, such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of the nomination etc. being in tune with the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution read with Section 137 of the Act. Thus, it was submitted by learned Additional Advocate General Shri P.K. Verma that there is absolutely no ambiguity in the language of the amendment so as to necessitate any controversy and this aspect of the matter has been clarified in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary vs. State Election Commissioner, (2009) 4 PLJR 282 . The clarificatory part is clearly dealt with in paragraph 7 of the aforementioned judgment, which is quoted hereunder: "7. So far as the power of the State Election Commissioner is concerned, the provisions in Section 136 of the Act clearly provide for the same. Section 136 begins with a non-obstante clause and goes on to provide that a person shall be disqualified for election or after election, for holding the post as Mukhia etc., if such person, inter alia, is not a Citizen of India. Sub-section (2) of Section 136 further provides that if any question arises as to whether a Member of a Panchayat at any level or Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat was before election or has become after election, subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of the State Election Commissioner which has been given power also to take suo motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard. Such explicit statutory provision with a non-obstante clause clearly vests power in the State Election Commissioner and such power cannot be questioned on account of provision for election petition under Section 137 of the Act." 82. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Verma further contended that in another judgment of this Court, namely, Md. Such explicit statutory provision with a non-obstante clause clearly vests power in the State Election Commissioner and such power cannot be questioned on account of provision for election petition under Section 137 of the Act." 82. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Verma further contended that in another judgment of this Court, namely, Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR 562 , the learned single Judge has endorsed the aforementioned view, wherein this Court while considering the amendment to Section 136(2) has held that the intent of the Legislature by introducing 2009 Amendment Act is clear, and the jurisdiction conferred upon the Commission to enter into the issue of disqualification after the election is such that the aggrieved person may straightaway approach the Commission in case of disqualification of an elected candidate, if the same disqualification was inhering in a candidate and, therefore, in existence before the election. It is relevant here to quote paragraph 25 of the said judgment: "25. However, there is another aspect of the matter. While an election petition can be presented only by a limited number of persons, i.e., any one who is a voter in such constituency, the same does not hold true with respect to a question of disqualification to be considered and decided by the State Election Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act wherein it is clearly provided that not only such matter of disqualification can be brought to the notice of the State Election Commissioner in the form of a complaint/application or information by any person or authority but the Commission may take suo motu cognizance of disqualification. Thus the locus standi to challenge under Section 136 is much wider than under Section 139(1)(a) of the Act, apart from the fact that with respect to a disqualification the Commission may take suo motu cognizance and decide the same." 83. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that the basic rule of statutory interpretation is generalia specialibus non derogant i.e. general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field on the same subject. This principle has been gone into deeply in the case of Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs. Binani Cements Limited and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 319 , wherein it has been held as follows : "32. This principle has been gone into deeply in the case of Commercial Tax Officer, Rajasthan vs. Binani Cements Limited and Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 319 , wherein it has been held as follows : "32. Before we deal with the fact situation in the present appeal, we reiterate the settled legal position in law, that is, if in a statutory rule or statutory notification, there are two expressions used, one in general terms and the other in special words, under the rules of interpretation, it has to be understood that the special words were not meant to be included in the general expression. Alternatively, it can be said that where a statute contains both a general provision as well as specific provision, the latter must prevail. 33. We are mindful of the principle that the court should examine every word of a statute in its context and must use the context in its widest sense. We are also in acquaintance with the observations of this Court in RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. wherein Chinnappa Reddy, J. nothing the importance of the context in which every word is used in the matter of interpretation of statutes held thus: (SCCp. 450, para 33) "33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the statute must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of its enactment, with the glasses of the statue-maker, provided by such context, its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appear different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed so that every word has a place and everything is in its place." It was thus submitted that the principles of statutory interpretation permit the amendment to be understood in such a manner where the courts should examine every word of a statute in its context and must use the context in its widest sense. Thus, as per the ratio of the aforementioned judgment, the power of the Election Commission as per the amendment of 2009 would clearly mean that the Election Commission is empowered to consider the disqualifications before or after election and even if the said disqualifications were inhering in the candidate even prior to the election. 84. I have gone through the entire provisions of law which encompass the ambit of the powers as held by the State Election Commissioner and have weighed them in the light of the Constitutional provision as also the various enactments which govern the electoral process. The answer sought from this Court in view of the dichotomy created by various judgments, can only be rendered after an analysis of various provisions of law and the intention of the Legislature which has brought about the change by way of amendment in Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. 85. At the very outset, I must clarify that none of the petitioners have challenged the vires of sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act but have placed their serious reservation with regard to the scope and extent of the aforementioned amendment. The anxiety placed is not unfounded. This Court has on several occasions ventured to decide whether the State Election Commissioner can hear the issue with respect to the disqualification as mentioned in Sections 135 and 136 of the Gram Panchayat Act under sub-Section (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 after the elections (emphasis given) 86. The anxiety placed is not unfounded. This Court has on several occasions ventured to decide whether the State Election Commissioner can hear the issue with respect to the disqualification as mentioned in Sections 135 and 136 of the Gram Panchayat Act under sub-Section (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 after the elections (emphasis given) 86. So far as the pre-election disqualifications are concerned, the matter has already been settled in the case of Geeta Gupta vs. The State of Bihar, (2012) 2 PLJR 285 , wherein it has been held that under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, the State Election Commissioner has the authority to examine the validity of the election of Mukhiya and cancel the same. It has been held therein that if an elected representative is declared to be disqualified by a competent authority, the natural corollary would be that the said elected representative becomes unseated from the post. 87. In the said decision cited (supra), a beautiful distinction has been carved out which well explains the situation and the extent of the authority bestowed on the State Election Commission. The said distinction is at paragraph 14, which is quoted hereunder: "14. Section 136(2) states that if a person is disqualified under Section 136(1) or qualification under section 135 before election as provided in Article 243-F of the Constitution, the State Election Commission can decide such matters. The use of expression "was disqualified before election" as provided in Article 243-F of Constitution of India and subject to any disqualification mentioned in Section 135 or sub-section (1) of Section 136 incorporated in Section 136(2) is of utmost relevance. Article 243-F states that if any person is so disqualified by any law made for purposes of election the dispute can be referred to prescribed authority. Section 136(2) of 2006 Act in consonance with provision of Article 243-F authorized State Election Commission to consider disqualification under Section 136(1) and qualification under Section 135 to decide dispute occurring prior to election. Article 243-F states that if any person is so disqualified by any law made for purposes of election the dispute can be referred to prescribed authority. Section 136(2) of 2006 Act in consonance with provision of Article 243-F authorized State Election Commission to consider disqualification under Section 136(1) and qualification under Section 135 to decide dispute occurring prior to election. This provision is materially different than Section 139(2) of 1993 Act which authorized a prescribed authority to decide disqualification occurring prior to election without aid of constitutional provision of Article 243-F. As such the authority of State Election Commission to decide dispute of disqualification occurring prior to election under Rule 122 amended in 2002 read with Section 139(2) of 1993 Act was declared ultra vires Article 243-O as well as Section 140 and Sections 143 of 1993 Act. Here Section 136(2) of 2006 Act has mandate of Article 243-F which Section 139(2) of 1993 Act did not have at the time of consideration of Bhagwan Singh case." The aforementioned judgment was affirmed as the LPA No.682 of 2012 preferred against the same was dismissed, vide order dated 14.09.2017. 88. The case of Bhagwan Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2004) 4 PLJR 483 , can be distinguished from this case as at the time of consideration of the issue, which had been generated with regard to Section 139(2) of 1993 Act read with Rule 122 as amended in 2002, such amendments did not have the mandate of Article 243-F whereas so far as Section 136(2) is concerned, the mandate is drawn under the provisions of Article 243-F(2) which authorize the State Election Commission to consider the disqualification under Section 136(1) and qualification under Section 135 to decide the dispute occurring prior to election. 89. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the State Election Commission does have the power to entertain disputes which were inhering in it so far as the disqualification enumerated in Section 136(1) are concerned, as also the disqualification under Section 135. The State Election Commission under Section 136(2) duly supported by Article 243-F(2) (which is the enabling part by which Legislature can make Laws) has the power to decide the issue relating to disqualification occurring prior and after the election. This is evident from the language used in Section 136(2) itself as it refers to disqualification before election or has incurred disqualification after election. This is evident from the language used in Section 136(2) itself as it refers to disqualification before election or has incurred disqualification after election. This issue also stands settled in the case of Manoj Bind v. State of Bihar, (2009) 4 PLJR 35 , and again in the case of Vijay Kumar Chaudhary vs. The State Election Commission (supra), wherein a Division Bench has clearly observed that the state Election Commission can take suo motu cognizance under Section 136(2) in respect of disqualification mentioned in Section 136(1) occurring both prior and after election. The language used in Section 136(1) which begins with a non obstante clause and is supported by the word "shall" clearly indicates that disqualification for election or after election for holding the post of a Mukhiya would be subject to consideration under Section 136(2) by the State Election Commissioner. I thus answer the reference framed and hold accordingly that there are two forums available for deciding the disputes which have occurred pre and post-election; one being the State Election Commission (SEC) and the other the Election Tribunal, which deals with purely the election disputes as indicated in the proviso. 90. I have also taken note of a judgment in the case of Suresh Baitha and other analogous cases, which was also decided after delving deeply into the issue by a learned single Bench of this Court which finds reported in (Suresh Baitha vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 1 PLJR 489 ). The learned single Judge, while dealing with Article 243-F of the Constitution, has clarified that the power to disqualify a person seeking to be elected to the post of Mukhiya and the like is subject to the law laid down by the State Government for the purpose of holding elections. Similarly, the matter of deciding disqualification is also subject to the law as enacted by the State Legislature. The learned single Judge, while dealing with the amended provisions of Section 136(2) at para 42 of the said judgment, has held that a disqualification which inheres in a candidate goes to the root of the matter and a person who is ab initio disqualified either before the election is held or is held to be disqualified after the election is held, should not be allowed to occupy a post as it would be a fraud on the people and on the Constitution. Dealing further with the amendment in Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and also Article 243-K and 243-O of the Constitution of India at para 29 the learned Court has stated as follows: "29. For distinguishing and giving a true meaning to the interpretation of the provisions of Article 243-K and 243-O, in context with the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Panchayat Act, the courts may look into the purpose of the enactment of Article 243-K. By virtue of this article, the constitution has created the State Election Commission for conduct of elections, conferred on them vast powers for the purpose of conducting elections, and finally sub-section (4) provides that the Legislature shall have the power to make laws in "all matters" relating to, or in connection with elections to the Panchayats. The laws are in place by virtue of enactment of the Bihar Panchayat Act. As far as qualifications and disqualifications are concerned, they are dealt with in Sections 135 and 136 of the Act. The law distinguish between an election dispute and a dispute arising out of qualification and disqualification of a candidate seeking to be elected as a Mukhiya of a Panchayat, whereas Article 243-O bars the interference of Courts in electoral matters except in the manner as prescribed by the Legislature of State, which is to provide resolution of electoral matters by filling election petitions. Ordinarily, there is a close proximity between non-obstinate (sic-non-obstante?) clause and the enacting part of the section/article, and the nonobstinate (sic-non-obstante?) clause will throw some light on the scope and the ambit of the enacting part in case of its ambiguity. Further, the wide amplitude of a nonobstinate (sic-non-obstante?) clause must be confined to the legislative policy and must be given effect of the extent the Parliament intended and not beyond the same. To hold that all other provisions by which Parliament has given the power to the State Legislature to frame law under Article 243-K are non-est, or that laws to framed would be contrary to Article-243-O, would amount to overreaching the ambit of the intention of the Parliament." Further at para 43 while dealing with the non obstante clause the Court has stated, which is quoted hereunder: "43. Referring to the arguments made in passing to the non-obstante word "notwithstanding" used in Article 243-O of the Constitution, the question has been answered by this court by distinguishing between an election dispute and a matter arising out of qualification/disqualification to hold a post. A clause beginning with notwithstanding anything contained in an Act, or in this case constitution, when appended to a Section/Article in the beginning is ordinarily mean (sic-menat?) to give an overriding effect to the provisions of an Act, Article mentioned in the non-obstante clause. However, it should be read harmoniously and unless there is a conflict, the court should not interfere by holding a particular case, as indicated, the distinction lies in the word "election dispute" as opposed to a dispute arising out of "qualification/disqualification". The Constitution has provided that the State Legislature has the power to make laws with respect to qualification and disqualification under Article 243-F as well as make laws and legislative with respect to matters relating to disputes raised during an election under Article 243-O of the Constitution. Thus, there is no conflict with the provisions of Article 243-F(2) and Article 243-O of the Constitution." At para 49 and 55 the learned single Judge has further held as follows : "49. It is not disputed that prior to the amendment of Section 136 of the Act by introducing Section 136(2) of the 2006 Act, the only procedure for challenging an election of a candidate was by filing and election petition. The procedure for filing an election petition takes a long time to conclude and more often than not by the time it is concluded, the term of the candidate comes to an end. Under such circumstances the courts find that where there is a dispute with respect to "mal" and "corrupt" practice allegedly committed by a returned candidate, an election petition would be the appropriate remedy as it requires that evidence be recorded and sometimes require both documentary and oral evidence. The question of disqualification, however, is well defined. There are laws in place which defines a disqualification under the Act. The aim of any legislation of this nature is obviously to not allow a person who is not qualified or disqualified as per the provisions of Sections 135 and 136(1) of the 2006 Act, to hold the post even for a day. There are laws in place which defines a disqualification under the Act. The aim of any legislation of this nature is obviously to not allow a person who is not qualified or disqualified as per the provisions of Sections 135 and 136(1) of the 2006 Act, to hold the post even for a day. An election petition before the State Election Commission is both an effective and efficacious remedy. 55. This Court, therefore, concludes that the State Election Commission has the power to entertain and decide issues relating to qualification and disqualification of a returned candidate under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Act, 2007 (sic-2006?)" 91. The intention of the Legislature is of paramount importance while interpreting a statute. It is needful to point out here that though in the case of Poonam Kumari (supra), the Court had proceeded to hold and justify interference of the State Election Commission in determining the question of disqualification and had also considered that the qualification aspects in Section 135, if challenged, should be done by an election petition, as at that point of time the new amended Section 136(2) was not in existence. It was only thereafter, that the amended provision of Section 136(2) was introduced and that the State Election Commission has specifically been given the power to consider the challenge to the disqualification of a candidate. At the earliest point of time, I have already referred to Disqualification for Membership as enumerated in Section 136(1)(a) to (j) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. Such disqualifications along with Section 135 relating to Qualification for Membership have now come under the purview of Section 136(2) if such disqualifications came to the forefront either before or after election. In this context, we are in agreement with the fine line of distinction drawn by Shri Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.507 of 2013, who had submitted that the provision of Section 136(2) of the Act has to be read down to the extent that there is a clear distinction between the two words "qualification" and "disqualification" on the one hand and "not being qualified/unqualified" on the other hand. If a person is unqualified on the one hand, then his case squarely fits in the category of a dispute within the meaning of Section 135 alone and the provisions of Section 136(2) would then not step in. If a person is unqualified on the one hand, then his case squarely fits in the category of a dispute within the meaning of Section 135 alone and the provisions of Section 136(2) would then not step in. In this category also, there can be two compartments of those who have been considered unqualified/not being qualified. Thus, these two categories can broadly be described into one in which the unqualified factor is patent on the face of the available circumstances whereas others for which it would be necessary to lead evidence for determining it to be as such. Thus, within this category also, there being two classes, the former would be amenable to the provisions of Section 136(2) whereas the latter would fall within the purview of the wrath of the proviso as contained in Section 136(2). 92. Earlier the dispute arising out of the said disqualification such as the voters' list or with regard to reservation of seats on the basis of caste reservation as indicated in Section 135 could be addressed only by the Election Tribunal as they were considered to be only purely election disputes. However, in the light of the amendment to Section 136(2), the disqualification inhering in Section 135 has also been brought in its ambit and taking into account Rule 117 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006, this Court came to the conclusion in the case of Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 1 PLJR 562 , which was subsequently followed in Md. Shakil v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 3 PLJR 624 , wherein it was held that the issue of disqualification is not something which could be considered as a purely election dispute rather something inhering in a candidate and cannot be equated with any other dispute arising out of an election which relates to the election process. It was held that the Election Commission has exclusive power to decide post-election disqualification as per the amended provisions and the proviso to the amendment does not in any way curtail the power of the Commission. 93. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court cited in (Neelam Devi v. The State of Bihar, (2015) AIR Patna 154), wherein the Court has held to the contrary. At paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 it has been stated as follows : "10. 93. In this context, it is also relevant to refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court cited in (Neelam Devi v. The State of Bihar, (2015) AIR Patna 154), wherein the Court has held to the contrary. At paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 it has been stated as follows : "10. Before we address the merits of the case, we intend to clarify one aspect. The Commission is a quasi-judicial authority, particularly when it decides the disputes between two parties regarding disqualification of an elected candidate. For all practical purposes, it can be compared to a Court wherein the adjudication about the rights of the parties are determined. The only difference is that it does not have all the trappings of a Court. 13. Coming to the merits of the matter, the respondent was declared elected as Mukhiya and the appellant was an unsuccessful candidate. Normally, the objections as to the age of the candidates is raised at the stage of filing of nominations. If, for any reason, such objection could not be taken, an election petition can be filed within the stipulated period of limitation. The purpose of prescribing limitations for election petitions is to remove uncertainty in the matter. If no election petition is filed within that period, the elected candidate can devote his full attention to the duties attached to the office. Section 137 mandates that the election to any office of Panchayat shall not be called in question, except by an election petition, as prescribed. Rule 106 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules,2006 (for short the Rules) prescribes the period of 30 days from the date of declaration of results as 'limitation' for filing election petition. 14. It is only in the month of November, 2011 that the appellant filed a petition before the Commission with a prayer to declare the election of the respondent as void. Serious doubt arises as to the very permissibility of such prayer. The reason is that S. 136 of the Act empowers the Commission only to disqualify a candidate, but no to declare an election as void. It is only a Tribunal or a Court which decides an election petition, that can declare an election, as void. This, however, is a different aspect." and thus in paragraph 16, the Court has gone to pronounce and conclude in the following manner: "16. It is only a Tribunal or a Court which decides an election petition, that can declare an election, as void. This, however, is a different aspect." and thus in paragraph 16, the Court has gone to pronounce and conclude in the following manner: "16. The Legislature was conscious of the fact that there is every likelihood that a particular issue pertaining to the election can be the subject-matter of verification by the Commission, on the one hand, and the subject-matter of an election petition, on the other hand. Obviously, for this reason a note of caution was added in proviso to sub-section (2) of S. 136 of the Act. The emphasis was to ensure that the Commission does not embark upon the enquiring into serious dispute, which can be decided only on the basis of evidence, and through interpretation of the provisions of law. The power conferred upon the Commission to pronounce upon the disqualification is mostly in relation to the exercise that precedes the conduct of election. This includes the rejection of nomination or the examination of the contention of the parties relating to those aspect. The section takes in its hold, the disqualification that may arise after the election also. It is here that the matter needs to be examined carefully." This judgment, with great respect, does not consider the issue with regard to the two different categories of disputes created, one relating to Disqualification and the other relating to purely election disputes as indicated in the proviso. 94. It would also be deemed to be necessary to explain as to whether the Election Commission in exercise of his powers under the amended Section acts administratively or quasi-judicially. 95. The meaning of "quasi-judicial" was discussed in the case of Indian National Congress (I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 685 , where at para 20, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while making a reference to the landmark English judgment in Cooper vs. Wilson, (1937) 2 AllER 726], have held as follows:- "The dictionary meaning of the word quasi is "not exactly" and it is just in between a judicial and administrative function. It is true, in many cases, the statutory authorities were held to be quasi-judicial authorities and decisions rendered by them were regarded as quasi-judicial, where there was contest between the two contending parties and the statutory authority was required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties. In Cooper v. Wilson it is stated that "the definition of a quasi-judicial decision clearly suggests that there must be two or more contending parties and an outside authority to decide those disputes". In view of the aforesaid statement of law, where there are two or more parties contesting each other's claim and the statutory authority is required to adjudicate the rival claims between the parties, such a statutory authority was held to be quasi-judicial and decision rendered by it as a quasi-judicial order. Thus, where there is a lis or two contesting parties making rival claims and the statutory authority under the statutory provision is required to decide such a dispute, in the absence of any other attributes of a quasi-judicial authority, such a statutory authority is quasi-judicial authority." Further, in the same judgment at para 22, their Lordships, while referring to R. vs. Electricity Commrs., 1923 AllER 150, held as follows: "when any body of persons has legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of subjects and having the duty to act judicially, such body of persons is a quasi-judicial body and decision given by them is a quasi-judicial decision. In the said decision, there was no contest or lis between the two contending parties before the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after making an enquiry and hearing the objections was required to pass order. In a nutshell, what was held in the aforesaid decision was, where a statutory authority is empowered to take a decision which affects the rights of persons and such an authority is under the relevant law required to make an enquiry and hear the parties, such authority is quasi judicial and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial act." 96. In a nutshell, what was held in the aforesaid decision was, where a statutory authority is empowered to take a decision which affects the rights of persons and such an authority is under the relevant law required to make an enquiry and hear the parties, such authority is quasi judicial and decision rendered by it is a quasi-judicial act." 96. The entire issue was aptly summarized in the Province Of Bombay vs. Khushaldas S. Advani, (1950) AIR SC 222, wherein it has been held as follows; "(i) that if a statute empowers an authority, not being a court in the ordinary sense, to decide disputes arising out of a claim made by one party under the statute which claim is opposed by another party and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other there is lis and prima facie, and in the absence of anything in the statute to the contrary it is the duty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially." 97. I am fully in agreement with the decisions rendered in the case of Indian National Congress (I) vs. Institute of Social Welfare and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 685 , wherein at paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 following conclusions have been arrived at. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 clearly sum up that whether or not an authority is quasi-judicial can be judged by reference to the decisions rendered in the context of the circumstances from which it emanated. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 clearly sum up that whether or not an authority is quasi-judicial can be judged by reference to the decisions rendered in the context of the circumstances from which it emanated. In the light of the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act (Amended Provisions), it can well be said that if the lis has generated out of a complaint made by any person or suo motu, then the authority would be taking decisions which would be administrative and judicial in nature but where the lis was generated on complaint made by two contesting parties, the decision rendered by the Election Commissioner on the complaint made under Section 136(2) would also be an order of quasi-judicial nature. However, given the nature of the provisions which indicates that the affected party has to be given an opportunity of being heard, if an order is to be passed to his prejudice and where an enquiry is to be conducted, in such circumstances, the order would necessarily be an order of quasi-judicial nature. This distinction having been made in the instant case, I would necessarily conclude that in the present context, the orders passed by the Election Commission are quasi-judicial in nature and it can thus be interpreted where no enquiry is conducted, the order would be a judicial order, but where an order is passed after inquiry by the statutory authority, the same would necessarily be quasi-judicial in nature. 98. The Division Bench judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary vs. State Election Commissioner, (2009) 4 PLJR 282 held at paragraph 7 as such: "7. So far as the power of the State Election Commissioner is concerned, the provisions in Section 136 of the Act clearly provide for the same. Section 136 begins with a non-obstante clause and goes on to provide that a person shall be disqualified for election or after election, for holding the post as Mukhia etc., if such person, inter alia, is not a Citizen of India. Section 136 begins with a non-obstante clause and goes on to provide that a person shall be disqualified for election or after election, for holding the post as Mukhia etc., if such person, inter alia, is not a Citizen of India. Sub-section (2) of Section 136 further provides that if any question arises as to whether a Member of a Panchayat at any level or Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat was before election or has become after election, subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of the State Election Commissioner which has been given power also to take suo motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard. Such explicit statutory provision with a non-obstante clause clearly vests power in the State Election Commissioner and such power cannot be questioned on account of provision for election petition under Section 137 of the Act." 99. So far as the case of the Division Bench judgment rendered in Poonam Kumari (supra) is concerned, it was clearly a dispute of pre-amended period and it was in pursuance of the decision rendered in the case of Poonam Kumari that the State clearly ventured into and issued the amendments and therefore it cannot be said to be on divergence of this decision as in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary (supra). Section 136(2) substituted by Section 16 of Amended Act 10 of 2009, we must gather is most certainly a special provision which had been introduced in the Act to overcome the wrangle and the checkmates which lay within Section 137 and which were being misinterpreted to render the democratic process a nullity by devious elements who were out to seriously undervalue the rule of law. 100. While dealing with the question of special provision vis-a-vis the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the provision of Sections 137, 138 and 139 override the provisions of Section 136(2) as general provision should be specific provision of law which has been coming down since the origin of the Act. 100. While dealing with the question of special provision vis-a-vis the learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the provision of Sections 137, 138 and 139 override the provisions of Section 136(2) as general provision should be specific provision of law which has been coming down since the origin of the Act. However, if we take into consideration the language of Section, as amended, it is clear that the law-makers by introducing the 'proviso' to Section 136(2) necessarily carved out a different category which is covered by Section 137 and therefore to say that the provision would be rendered otiose is, in my opinion, not at all tenable. It was in this context that the decision being in the case of Md. Alamgir vs. State of Bihar (supra) was rendered and the conclusion arrived at have been aptly summed up in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26, which are reproduced herein under: "24. Read with Section 137 which provides that the election to any office of a Panchayat or a Gram Katchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed and the further bar in a negative form by Section 138(b) of the Act which declares that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under the Act, it is evident that in an election petition it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the election of a returned candidate on the ground that he did not belong to the particular backward class so as to contest the election on such seat which was reserved for the particular backward class. This, however, cannot have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the State Election Commissioner specifically granted to him under Section 136(2) of the Act as amended. It appears that it would be open to such a person to challenge the disqualification in an election petition on the ground of Section 139(1)(a) but it would also be open to the said person not to take recourse to such procedure but straightaway approach the State Election Commissioner by filing a complaint or application before it. 25. However, there is another aspect of the matter. 25. However, there is another aspect of the matter. While an election petition can be presented only by a limited number of person, i.e., any one who is a voter in such constituency, the same does not hold true with respect to a question of disqualification to be considered and decided by the State Election Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act wherein it is clearly provided that not only such matter of disqualification can be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint/application or information by any person or authority but the Commission may take suo motu cognizance of disqualification. Thus the locus standi to challenge under Section 136 is much wider than under Section 139(1)(a) of the Act, apart from the fact that with respect to a disqualification the Commission may take suo motu cognizance and decide the same. 26. The next question would be as to the effect of the proviso to Section 136(2). The function of a proviso of the nature as contained in Section 136(2) is to take away from the main part certain matters which are included therein and further it is also explanatory of the extent of power contained the main part of Section 136(2). What is excluded from the main part of Section 136 is the non-entertainment of any complaint the subject matter of which is a purely election dispute. A pure election dispute would normally be a dispute which arises in the course of conduct of the election, some of which are enumerated in the proviso itself as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination and similar matters. So far as disqualification is concerned, the same is not something which can be considered as purely an election dispute rather as something inhering in the candidate himself or herself and would be irrespective of the fact that the election was otherwise conducted in accordance with law and there is no other defect in the conduct of the said election nor any complaint with respect to any corrupt practice committed by the successful candidate himself or his agent. Thus the question of disqualification cannot be equated with any other dispute arising out of an election which relates to the election process." 101. I am thus of the view that the ratio of the decision in the case of Md. Thus the question of disqualification cannot be equated with any other dispute arising out of an election which relates to the election process." 101. I am thus of the view that the ratio of the decision in the case of Md. Alamgir (supra) stands on a firm footing and the amended provision is in itself a special provision introduced particularly to cut down to size of the unqualified candidates who have manipulated their candidature and they cannot be permitted to hold a democratic post. This aspect of the matter was also noted by the learned single Judge who in paragraph 27 had stated that "the only power which was not specifically conferred on the State Election Commission under the earlier provisions was with respect to disqualification under Section 135 of the Act, as was noted by the Division Bench of this Court in Punam Kumari's case (supra). The same having been specifically conferred upon the State Election Commission by the amended provision cannot be allowed to be defeated on the basis of the proviso, which in any case appears to be more in a nature of clarificatory provision and does not in any way affect the power conferred in the main part of the provision." 102. Thus, I can safely conclude that the provisions of Section 136(2) is a special provision in the Statute which confers upon the Election Commission (statutory authority) a power and the same having been introduced by amendment, the law-makers were fully aware an intended to give override effect over other provisions which, in my opinion, must be adopted and violated in a democratic system so as to maintain the rule of law. 103. 103. Having come to the firm conclusion that the amendment to Section 136 as contained in Section 136(2) by Section 16 of Amendment Act, 2009, the Legislature has couched the Election Commission with further powers which in a democratic set up would stand up for remedying a wrong which would otherwise not be available to render an election void I find and hold that when disqualification inhering in a candidate so elected would surface after election, for example, if any disqualification is detected much after the conclusion of the election process and beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act for filing Election Disputes a remedy would be available not only to an aggrieved person but also to others or even the Election Commission to cancel an election of a Member and render his election void, as no public office could be occupied by persons in whom there inhered a disqualification in terms of either Section 135 or Section 136(1) of the Act. 104. I have also come across a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 3 PLJR 17 (S.C.), where a similar situation had arisen on an amendment made in Rule 122 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules on 28.02.2002. It is relevant to mention that the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 enacted by the State Legislature had framed Section 139(1)(f) of the said Act which led to the aforesaid litigation and it was held as follows : "4. The Legislature of the State of Bihar enacted Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Section 139(1)(f) of the said Act reads thus: "Disqualification-(1)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhia, member of the Grampanchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person: (a)......................... (f) Has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service." 5. The Bihar Panchayat Election Rules were framed thereunder. (f) Has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service." 5. The Bihar Panchayat Election Rules were framed thereunder. Rule 122 of the said Rules was amended on 28.02.2002, whereby and whereunder the State Election Commission was empowered to determine the question as to whether a member of the Panchayat, at any level, had disqualified himself on any ground enumerated in various sub-clauses therein. Such a power could be exercised by the State Election Commission either suo motu or on the relevant facts being brought to its notice. Rule 122 of the said Rules reads as under: "Rule 122: Under provisions of section 139(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993; the State Election Commission shall be the competent authority to decide whether a member of a Panchayat at any level has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 139(1) of the Act. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election commission may also take suo motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard." 6. It is furthermore not in dispute that the State Election Commission at the instance of respondent No.6 considered the question as to whether the appellant herein stood disqualified having regard to the fact that the appellant was dismissed from service. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as a Dafadar in a temporary capacity. He was allegedly dismissed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Saharsa, by an order dated 9.8.1980." "9. Respondent No. 6 filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the said order. The said writ petition was heard together with other writ petitions wherein the vires of Section 139(1) of the Act and Rule 122 were in question. A Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the validity of the said provisions, opined that even though the writ applications filed against the orders of the State Election Commissioner were maintainable, such elections which were vitiated by fraud cannot be allowed to stand." 105. A Division Bench of the High Court, upholding the validity of the said provisions, opined that even though the writ applications filed against the orders of the State Election Commissioner were maintainable, such elections which were vitiated by fraud cannot be allowed to stand." 105. Having viewed and weighed the different pronouncements which have come before us in a myriad of judgments that I have referred, I find myself in agreement with the judgments which have been rendered in tune with the spirit of the legislation and the intention of the Legislature which is purely to protect the democratic process. The amendment introduced is intended to negate the fraudulent acts of candidates, who manage to shield their disqualification before elections. It is, therefore, necessary to reap the best of the benefits out of such an amendment and a cautious approach in its interpretation would not occasion any transgression of the Constitutional mandate. The compartmentalization of the disqualification which has been enumerated in Section 135 and also in Section 136(1) for the purposes of entertaining complaints under Section 136(2) by the State Election Commissioner, would therefore necessarily provide the checkmates which are being apprehended in these Appeals. 106. While answering the Reference and holding the Election Commissioner to be an Additional Forum for remedying election wrongs, it would therefore be appropriate to enumerate and classify certain disputes and the manner in which the jurisdiction of the State Election Commissioner should be exercised which I detail hereunder: (A) The State Election Commissioner shall not entertain any dispute which is already the subject-matter and is a dispute pending before any Election Tribunal as it would not be open to the complainant to avail two statutory remedies. The remedy available or opted by the complainant earlier would have to be pursued instead of filing complaints under Section 136(2) as having once been treated in accordance with the proviso to Section 136(2), the complainant should not be permitted to pursue a parallel remedy. The remedy available or opted by the complainant earlier would have to be pursued instead of filing complaints under Section 136(2) as having once been treated in accordance with the proviso to Section 136(2), the complainant should not be permitted to pursue a parallel remedy. (B) The State Election Commissioner must not entertain purely election disputes referred to in Section 139 and it must decide as a preliminary issue as to whether the complaint filed before it relates to and arises out of only those disqualifications, which have been clearly enunciated under Sections 135 and 136(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act and is not subject to the bar as contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution after putting the parties to notice. (C) The powers of the State Election Commissioner to "suo motu" take notice of any disqualification of a Member either before or after the election, however, should not be circumscribed into a straight-jacket formula so as to render the proviso redundant. (D) The provisions of Sections 137, 138 and 139 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 must be construed strictly in consonance with Article 243-O of the Constitution. Thus, for the purpose of deciding qualification and disqualification as held earlier in the case of Suresh Baitha (supra), the authority is the State Election Commission whereas in other disputes, it is the authority as prescribed under Section 137. It is needful to mention here that the scope of an election petition is narrowed down as the language used in Section 137 clause 2(a) and (b) is, "where the parties can only be those contesting candidates against whom the allegation of corrupt practices are made by the petitioner whereas any person can file a complaint before the State Election Commission on the "question of disqualification" as its is an issue which goes to the root of the matter and a person who is ab initio disqualified, either before the election is held, or is held to be disqualified after the election is held, should not be allowed to occupy a post as it would be a fraud on the people and on the Constitution." (Para 42 in Suresh Baith's case (supra). (E) Disputed question of facts relating to disqualification, where there are unimpeachable materials before the State Election Commission should be entertained by the Commission but in matters where it is difficult for the State Election Commission to come to a finding regarding the question of disqualification, be it either of the question of age or of the question of caste of a returned candidate, the same should be subjected to strict enquiry and be entertained only when such facts can be determined on the basis of unimpeachable document. In other cases where the issue can be determined by leading evidence, the question of disqualification should await the decision of Fact-Finding Body, which is duly empowered in that behalf, as indicated in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241 . (F) The issue of disqualification which has not been specifically enumerated in either of the provisions of Section 135 and 136(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 should ordinarily be by way of filing election petition. (G) In any view of the matter, any application entertained by the State Election Commission regarding the right of a returned candidate must be preceded by a proper notice granting the elected candidate/Mukhiya of being heard as the Constitution gives great importance to a person who is a democratically elected representatives of the people. The allegation regarding disqualification of a returned candidate must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (H) The question of wrong acceptance of nomination does not come within the grounds mentioned under Section 137(1). (I) Pre and post-qualification and disqualification disputes, which surface after the period of limitation has exhausted may be looked into by the State Election Commission. (J) The Act having empowered the State Election Commissioner to decide upon disputes of disqualification, it would follow as a natural corollary that the election of such candidate is rendered void and once having declared it to be so, the post automatically would fall vacant. (K) A pertinent question was raised as to whether the Election Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 136(2) could declare the seat vacant and announce a fresh election. (K) A pertinent question was raised as to whether the Election Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 136(2) could declare the seat vacant and announce a fresh election. In this context, I had occasion to scan through the relevant provisions of Sections 482 and 483 of the Bihar Municipal Act and on a plain reading thereof, it appears that after consideration of the dispute, even election disputes eventually come back to the District Magistrate/State Election Commissioner to declare the seat vacant and announce a fresh election or a vacancy under Section 484 for the concerned post/constituency. Rule 117 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 2006 is also to the said effect and therefore I have no hesitation in affirming that the State Election Commission can well declare the seat to be vacant as the said power has come to it and is in tune with the Constitutional mandate of Article 243F(2). 107. In the instant case, the Court has been pressed with conflicting view-points, one which seems to render the amendment inconvenient whereas the other interpretation offered is that the Court must lean towards that construction, which would not render the legislation futile. It has been settled time without number that the statute ought to be construed as "ut res magis valeat quam pereat", meaning thereby it is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it. It has been well established that there is a presumption that the Legislature does not exceed it jurisdiction. The maxim aforementioned has been well stated in the case of Welfare Association A.R.P. Maharashtra v. Ranjit P. Gohil, (2003) 9 SCC 358 , which is quoted hereunder : "A statute is construed so as to make it effective and operative on the principle expressed in the maxim "ut res magis valeat quam pereat', (it is better to validate a thing than to invalidate it). There is a presumption that the legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction. The burden of establishing that the Act is not within the competence of the legislature, or that it has transgressed other constitution mandates, such as those relating to fundamental rights, is always on the person who challenges its vires. There is a presumption that the legislature does not exceed its jurisdiction. The burden of establishing that the Act is not within the competence of the legislature, or that it has transgressed other constitution mandates, such as those relating to fundamental rights, is always on the person who challenges its vires. If a case of violation of a constitutional provision is made out than the State must justify that the law can still be protected under a saving provision, the courts strongly lean against reducing a statute to a futility. As far as possible, the courts shall act to make a legislation effective and operative." 108. Having expressed my opinion and in view of the aforementioned discussions, as have been enumerated herein above, I would now proceed to deal with the cases, which have been referred herein under, in a brief manner while answering the reference to this Bench. (1) L.P.A. No.566 of 2017 109. The order of the State Election Commissioner dated 20.02.2017 was questioned as the appellant has been disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondents 6 and 7. The appellant was declared the successful candidate and after issuance of certificate in her favour, a complaint was filed before the Election Commissioner, who after receiving the complaint called for a report from the District Magistrate-Cum-District Election Officer, which was sent by the District Magistrate. The State Election Commissioner issued show cause notice to the appellant and on submission of the show cause, the Election Commissioner on the basis of the report of the District Magistrate proceeded to dispose of the complaint petition by passing an order that the appellant is disqualified from the post of Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat. The said order of the Commissioner declaring the appellant disqualified was put to test before the learned single Judge, but the points and the legal issues raised by the appellant were not considered. I have already held that such issues of Disqualification fall within the ambit of the amended provision of Section 136(2) and therefore the matter is remitted back to the concerned roster Bench for determination of the issue in the light of the aforementioned facts and upon consideration of the ratio of the decision of the present Full Bench. (2) L.P.A. No.391 of 2016 110. (2) L.P.A. No.391 of 2016 110. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant whose election was declared void on the basis of an order passed under Section 136(2) by the State Election Commissioner. The petitioner, who contested the election of Panchayat Raj, Pathrabari was notified and was reserved for the extremely backward category for "Iraine" caste. The said Md. Wasim Raza was declared elected to the post of Mukhiya, but the unsuccessful candidate, namely, Wasima Khatoon, challenged the election by filing a complaint before the State Election Commission under Section 135 read with Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. The State Election Commissioner thus embarked on an enquiry with regard to the authenticity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the elected candidate and upon finding the same to have been wrongly issued on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the District Magistrate, rendered the election of the same to be void. The said order of the State Election Commissioner dated 07.01.2013, by which the appellant was held to be of "Rocky" and not "Iraine" caste and thus disqualified. As such, the aforementioned decision was put to test in C.W.J.C. No.2111 of 2013 and was dismissed by the learned single Judge and, thus, the present intra-Court Appeal has been preferred. The present case now stands remitted back to the Division Bench to be considered as per the considerations and observations in the present judgment. (3) C.W.J.C. No.507 of 2013 111. The present writ application has also been placed before the Full Bench for its answer is an issue similar to that which was under consideration in C.W.J.C. No.20234 of 2014 (Lalan Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.). The question is as to whether the power to adjudicate on a caste status of the returned candidate under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act would lie before the District Magistrate or with the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government. This issue has already been answered herein above and is similar to the issue in L.P.A. No.1425 of 2014 and C.W.J.C. No.20234 of 2014 and therefore needs no further consideration. The reference having been answered accordingly, the present application is sent back to the concerned roster for adjudication in the light of the answer given by us. (4) L.P.A. No.242 of 2017 112. L.P.A. No.242 of 2017 (Pramod Mahto Vs. The reference having been answered accordingly, the present application is sent back to the concerned roster for adjudication in the light of the answer given by us. (4) L.P.A. No.242 of 2017 112. L.P.A. No.242 of 2017 (Pramod Mahto Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) places a similar query before this Court. The question which arose in this case is that the petitioner approached the writ Court for quashing the entire proceeding of Case No.18 of 2016 in which by order dated 24.11.2016, the State Election Commissioner had disqualified the petitioner from being a Ward Member of Ward No.2, Nagar Panchayat, Bairagania and consequent thereto declared the seat to have become vacant and has further directed for filling it up in accordance with law. The complainant before the State Election Commissioner (respondent No.12) had alleged that the petitioner had become disqualified to stand for election in view of the bar of Section 18(m) of the Municipal Act inasmuch as when his fourth child was born on 20.07.2010, which was after the cut-off date 04.04.2008 and therefore he was not eligible to contest the election. The contention of the appellant herein is also similar. He has questioned the very jurisdiction of the State Election Commissioner in looking into the complaint as it is in the teeth of the provisions of Articles 243-V and 243-ZG of the Constitution of India and that it was only by way of an election petition in terms of Section 476 that such a dispute relating to pre-election disqualification can be looked into and that Section 478 of the Municipal Act creates a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. I have already answered this issue in my earlier discussions and hold that such disqualification disputes are well amenable to the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission as enshrined in the provisions of the Municipal Act and the bar under Articles 243-V and 243-ZG of the Constitution would not step in its way to render the provisions of the Municipal Act otiose. The reference placed before us is thus remitted back to the Division Bench. (5) L.P.A. 329 of 2018 113. The reference placed before us is thus remitted back to the Division Bench. (5) L.P.A. 329 of 2018 113. In the present appeal, the writ petitioner had prayed for quashing of a complaint filed by respondent No.10 before the State Election Commissioner on the ground that the petitioner had contested the election for the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Biratpur, Sonbarsa Block, District-Saharsa on the basis of obtaining a false caste certificate. The allegation against the complainant (respondent No.10) was that after the petitioner was elected as Mukhiya of the aforementioned Gram Panchayat, the election of the petitioner was challenged in an election petition under Section 137 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 on 04.06.2016. However, simultaneously, another election complaint was preferred before the State Election Commissioner for disqualification of the petitioner under Section 136 of the Act on ground of being elected on the basis of a caste certificate obtained by playing fraud, which is impermissible in law. The contention of the petitioner was that having already preferred an election petition under Section 137 of the Act, it would not be open for the person to approach the State Election Commission by selecting an alternative forum. The learned single Judge has, however, dismissed the application stating that there is statutory provision which prohibits filing of a complaint for disqualification before the State Election Commission after filing of an election petition. However, this Court feels that the complainant could not have pursued parallel remedies. In so far as it relates to the said observation, the decision of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained, but at the same time, it has to be held that the power of the State Election Commission does exist with respect to getting the election set at naught, if the same has been occasioned on the basis of a caste certificate obtained by playing fraud on the authority. In view of the observations made herein above and the answers and suggestions offered hereinafter, the present L.P.A. is remitted back to the Division Bench for appropriate consideration in accordance with law and settled in this reference. (6) C.W.J.C. No.11445 of 2018 114. In view of the observations made herein above and the answers and suggestions offered hereinafter, the present L.P.A. is remitted back to the Division Bench for appropriate consideration in accordance with law and settled in this reference. (6) C.W.J.C. No.11445 of 2018 114. The petitioner Khusboo Ara was an elected candidate on the post of Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Bishahariya whose election was put to test before the State Election Commission, much after expiry of 30 days from the date of declaration by respondent No.7, namely, Ruksana Praveen. The District Magistrate, Araria cancelled the caste certificate issued in her favour only after a summary enquiry which has rendered her qualification under a cloud and thus she approached this Court in a writ which was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to move before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee came to a finding that the petitioner did not belong to the caste for which the post was reserved and it was alleged that the said finding was arrived at without notice to the petitioner and in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. It was this finding which was challenged by the petitioner and while the matter was pending before the State Election Commission, the petitioner filed a petition for staying the proceedings of the State Election Commission which was proceeding under Section 136 of the Gram Panchayat Act as the petitioner contended that the Full Bench of this Court was considering the issue at hand. As I have already discussed the issue with regard to the role of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the extent of power of the State Election Commission in this matter, we accordingly remit the case to the concerned roster Bench for taking an appropriate decision in the matter in the light of the observations made by us herein. (7) L.P.A. 272 of 2017 115. (7) L.P.A. 272 of 2017 115. The appellant Kunti Devi had preferred a writ petition, bearing CWJC No.18842 of 2016, challenging the order dated 26.10.2016 passed by the State Election Commissioner, Bihar, Patna, whereby her election to the post of Ward Councillor of Ward No.15, Nagar Parishad, Arwal was set aside and further a direction was issued to the District Magistrate-Cum-District Returning Officer, Nagarpalika to file an F.I.R. against her since she had been found guilty under Section 447 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 upon a complaint filed by one Smt. Sabila Khatoon (Respondent No.7). The ground taken was that she stood disqualified to contest the said election since she had more than two children on the date of filing of nomination for the said election. It was contended by the writ petitioner that the role of the State Election Commission comes to an end with the declaration of the results as per the mandate of the people and no democratically elected candidate can be unseated in a summary proceeding without following the due process of law by preferring an election petition before the Election Tribunal. Since she was found guilty under Section 447 of the Bihar Municipal Act, she stood disqualified under Section 18(1) (m) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007. The learned single Judge by the impugned order has decided the issue against the writ petitioner holding that since fraud has been exposed, the State Election Commissioner by the impugned order was fully justified in setting aside the said election. In my answer to the reference, I have already held that the provisions of the Act clearly empowered the State Election Commission to enquire and detect incidences of fraud and collusion so as to unseat unscrupulous candidate who has fraudulently occupied a post. Having observed as above, we remit back the case to the Division Bench for resolving the issue in the light of the aforesaid observations. (8) L.P.A. No.1425 of 2014 116. This case was also referred to the Full Bench. In the appeal filed by the respondent Sunita Devi, she has placed a challenge to the order of the learned single Judge, whereby he has allowed the case of the unsettled and elected candidate of the Municipal election in which the election of the petitioner Rita Devi as Ward Councillor had been set aside by the Election Commission. In the appeal filed by the respondent Sunita Devi, she has placed a challenge to the order of the learned single Judge, whereby he has allowed the case of the unsettled and elected candidate of the Municipal election in which the election of the petitioner Rita Devi as Ward Councillor had been set aside by the Election Commission. The Court after considering the relevant provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 had set aside the order of the State Election Commission and restored her to the post of Ward Councillor. In view of the circumstances detailed in the present L.P.A., we remit the present case to the Division Bench for deciding the same in terms of the reference as answered by us. (9) C.W.J.C. No.20234 of 2014 117. In the case of Lalan Mahto, the petitioner in CWJC No.20234 of 2014, the question of determination of the caste certificate and the power of the District Magistrate to hold an enquiry came to be under consideration and the learned single Judge while referring to the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development & Ors., (1994) 6 SCC 241 , which was followed in another case reported in (Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors, (2012) AIR SC 314.). In these cases, on examining the objection as per the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to go into the issue of deciding the caste as well as the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate has upheld the jurisdiction of both the statutory authorities taking note of the amended provisions of Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. This was decided on the basis of a decision rendered by a Bench of this Court, reported in (Md. Alamgir vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, (2014) 1 PLJR 562 .). This judgment, however, is pending consideration before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.1387 of 2013. Since the same has not yet been referred, we refer back the same in the terms referred to herein above and may be heard analogous. However, in this case it was pointed out by the Counsel for the Election Commission that the case of Md. This judgment, however, is pending consideration before the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.1387 of 2013. Since the same has not yet been referred, we refer back the same in the terms referred to herein above and may be heard analogous. However, in this case it was pointed out by the Counsel for the Election Commission that the case of Md. Alamgir upheld the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to adjudicate on the matter of a caste status of an elected representative and also to take the assistance of the authority who had granted such certificate, a subsequent judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Farzana Sabaff vs. State of Bihar & Ors., arising out of CWJC No.4604 of 2008 held to the contrary. It was pointed out that the judgment of Farzana Sabaff (supra) was under consideration of the legal position existing prior to the amendment in Section 136(2) of the Act whereas the judgment in the case of Md. Alamgir is in the light of the amendment to Section 136(2) of the Act, therefore, the subsequent judgment would be of no consequence. In my considered opinion, it would be unnecessary to comment on the same as the case in Farzana Sabaff stands well distinguished. However, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sushila Devi Vs. State of Bihar, arising out of L.P.A. No.1158 of 2012, decided on 17.09.2013, upheld the power of the District Magistrate to examine the veracity of the caste certificate on a direction given by the State Election Commission while adjudicating on a complaint case filed under Section 136(2) of the Act. Consequently, this case has also been placed before the Division Bench for deciding the issue at hand as to whether the State Election Commission is empowered to hold enquiry into the caste status of any elected representative and to seek assistance from the authority issuing the same. In my considered opinion, since caste certificates are issued on the basis of available land and revenue records available and which form unimpeachable evidence, dependence on the same by the State Election Commissioner after obtaining reports from the competent issuing authority would not prejudice the elected candidate unless it can be proved that there was perversity in the same. (10) C.W.J.C. No.68 of 2017 118. (10) C.W.J.C. No.68 of 2017 118. In the instant case, the writ petitioner seeks to challenge a complaint made against her wherein a proceeding was started before the State Election Commission under Section 136(2) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 with a prayer to declare the writ petitioner disqualified to hold the post on the ground that she does not belong to the class for which the post was reserved. As such, she has challenged the power of the State Election Commissioner to consider an issue which could well have been decided by filing an election petition and the matter has been referred to the Full Bench for holding that the power of the State Election Commissioner under Section 136(2) is not in accordance with the mandate of the constitutional provisions and thus not maintainable. This issue has been dealt by me at length and the answer to the same has been well spelt out and needs no further enunciation. However, the matter is remitted back to the concerned roster Bench for adjudication in the light of the present Full Bench. 85. To sum up the aforementioned considerations, it would be appropriate to refer to Lord Hindley Earl of Halsbury in his profound enunciation wherein he has reiterated in QUINN v. LEATHEM, (1901) AC 495: "...........every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides." 120. My answer to the reference thus stands concluded. Rajeev Ranjan Prasad – 121. These Letters Patent Appeals and the writ applications call for an answer to some common questions framed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while referring them to the Special Bench vide order dated 10.05.2016 passed in LPA No.1425 of 2014 arising out of Civil Writ Jurisidiction Case No.12072 of 2014. 122. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts leading to reference 123. 122. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts leading to reference 123. The appellant before the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No.1425 of 2014 happens to be the original writ petitioner who moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.06.2014 passed by the State Election Commission in Case No.26 of 2013 whereby the petitioner-appellant had been removed from the post of Ward Councillor, Ward No.6, Nawada Municipal Council, District-Nawada in exercise of powers vested under Section 18(2) and Section 447 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2007) and the Rules framed thereunder. The election of the writ petitioner-appellant was challenged by the private respondent before the State Election Commission alleging suppression of material facts while filing her nomination paper with the Election Officer. The four allegations set-up against writ petitioner were as follows:- "(a) That the petitioner though has admitted to ownership of 3 acres and 9.5 decimals of land but she has not mentioned about the house though the same is registered in the name of her husband Sujit Kumar Singh; (b) Although the petitioner has answered in the negative in respect of other cases but her husband owns a tractor and motorcycle which have not been mentioned; (c) As against the liabilities, although the petitioner has answered in the negative but there is a tractor loan in the name of her husband and in which an amount of Rs.4,13,701/- remains outstanding as on 11.06.2012; and (d) the seconder of the petitioner, namely, Birendra Prasad Singh alias Birendra Singh is involved in criminal case arising from Nawada Town P.S. Case No.402 of 2008 and Complaint Case No.534 of 2004." 124. The State Election Commission took cognizance of the allegations made against the writ-petitioner, called for a report from the District Officer-cum-District Election Officer (Municipality), Nawada after an enquiry. The District Election Officer (Municipality) vide his letter no.302 dated 18.06.2013 informed the Election Commission that the husband of the Returned candidate has his paternal house in tola Sakulachak, P.S.-Muffasil, however, he has not got any share in the said property. The house is occupied by his brother and father. For this reason his wife Smt. Rita Devi (Returned Candidate) had disclosed in Schedule I about one vacant plot of 3 acres 9.5 decimals. The house is occupied by his brother and father. For this reason his wife Smt. Rita Devi (Returned Candidate) had disclosed in Schedule I about one vacant plot of 3 acres 9.5 decimals. She had inadvertantly not disclosed about tractor loan availed from Central bank of India. Her one of the supporters Birendra Singh is an accused in one FIR which was not disclosed in the FIR. Further she had not disclosed whether she was Councillor of Nagar Parishad, Nawada. 125. The complaint was contested by the Returned candidate on various grounds. In course of argument, a specific plea was taken on behalf of the Returned candidate-writ petitioner that once the election has been held and she has been declared elected, the State Election Commissioner has no authority of law under the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 (as amended up to date) to remove the elected candidate from her post. The State Election Commissioner however declared the writ petitioner disqualified in terms of Section 447 and 18(2) of the Act of 2007. The post held by the writ petitioner was declared vacant and direction was issued to take appropriate steps to fill up the post. 126. The writ-petitioner moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction. The learned Writ Court took a view that Section 18 of the Act of 2007 read with Rule 46 of the Bihar Municipal Election Rules,2007 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2007) vests power in the State Election Commission to disqualify a candidate or an elected candidate in the circumstances stated in the said provision. The Writ Court took a view that the allegations made by the private respondent in the backdrop of the statutory requirements underlying Rule 43(1)(f) of the Rules read with Section 18(1) of the Act leaves no room for confusion that the allegations warranted no indulgence for it did not disclose any suppression of fact by the petitioner with regard to her assets and the liabilities in her name. The entire allegations were directed against her husband and the relevant Rule 43(1)(f) does not require the petitioner to give any such information. 127. The entire allegations were directed against her husband and the relevant Rule 43(1)(f) does not require the petitioner to give any such information. 127. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission took a plea before the Writ Court that since the nomination form required the petitioner to also give information with regard to the assets held by her husband, but the same was not given by her, such omission was fatal enough to result in the order impugned. In this connection, learned counsel for the State Election Commission relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India 7 Anr., (2014) 14 SCC 189 in which Sections 125-A, 33-A and 36 of the Representation of People Act were considered. The Writ Court held that the circumstances discussed under Section 18 of the Act of 2007 to disqualify a candidate after election does not cover any such instance and even if Section 447 of the Act provides for some penal consequences for concealment of any such information, the same cannot be taken as one of the conditions mentioned in Section 18(1) for inviting a disqualification as it could not be a foundation for the impugned order. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Resurgence India (supra) was distinguished as it was held that the said judgment was arising from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and disqualified the candidate after election inter alia on the ground of suppression of material fact while filing the nomination paper. It has been held that there is no such provision under the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 to disqualify a Councillor on the grounds of omission to fill up the required information as found under the Representation of the People Act. The Writ Court thus allowed the writ application and restored the writ petitioner to her post of Ward Councillor. 128. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in CWJC No.12072 of 2014, the private respondent moved in Letters Patent Appeal before this Court giving rise to LPA No.1425 of 2014. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary Vs. 128. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in CWJC No.12072 of 2014, the private respondent moved in Letters Patent Appeal before this Court giving rise to LPA No.1425 of 2014. Before the Hon'ble Division Bench, the earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary Vs. State Election Commissioner, (2009) 4 PLJR 282 was placed and it was contended that pursuant to the said judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar Choudhary (supra), the Bihar Municipal Act and Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 were amended and by virtue of such amendment, the State Election Commissioner has been empowered to decide the question as to whether a member of the municipality or the gram panchayat was disqualified before election or has entered disqualification after election. 129. It was contended before the Hon'ble Division Bench hearing the present Letters Patent Appeal that Section 476 of the Bihar Municipal Act contemplates that election to any office of a Municipality shall not be called in question except by way of an election petition as prescribed. Further Section 479(2) provides the grounds for declaring the election to be void and one of the grounds prescribed thereunder is that on the date of election, a Returned candidate was not 'qualified' or was 'disqualified' to be chosen as a member under this Act which includes the disqualification under Section 18 of the Act. 130. The plea of the State Election Commission was based on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Md. Alamgir Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR 562 and Md. Shakil Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors., (2014) 3 PLJR 624 which was affirmed in LPA No.1615 of 2014 on 25.06.2014. Referring to the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it was contended that the remedy of the election petition does not oust the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to examine the question of disqualification incurred by a candidate in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Questions Framed 131. Referring to the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006, it was contended that the remedy of the election petition does not oust the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission to examine the question of disqualification incurred by a candidate in terms of Section 18 of the Act. Questions Framed 131. The Hon'ble Division Bench took a prima-facie view that by applying principles of harmonious construction if two provisions are harmoniously constructed it would mean that all questions up to the declaration of result would fall within the jurisdiction of the State Election Commission, but after the declaration of result, the jurisdiction to dispute the election would be only through the election petition on one or more the grounds on which the election petition can be maintained. Since there were different judgments taking a different view, the Hon'ble Division Bench thought it just and proper to refer the questions arising out of the pleadings of the parties to a Larger Bench for examining those questions as under:- "(i) Whether the State Election Commission will have power to consider disqualification of a candidate after election as such Election Commission is constituted only for conduct of elections? (ii) Whether the provisions of Section 476 read with Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 can be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred power to disqualify a candidate after election, as the disqualification of a candidate is a ground on which election petition can be filed? (iii) Whether the State Election Commission will have power to declare a candidate disqualified when the limitation for filing the election petition has come to an end, meaning thereby instead of adopting an alternative statutory remedy, the State Election Commission can nullify the election?" 132. I have taken the aforementioned facts from the case in which reference has been made. The other cases have been tagged by virtue of the judicial orders passed either at the stage of admission of the writ application by the learned Single Judge or at the stage of hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal in Admission by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Submissions of the petitioners 133. Mr. The other cases have been tagged by virtue of the judicial orders passed either at the stage of admission of the writ application by the learned Single Judge or at the stage of hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal in Admission by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. Submissions of the petitioners 133. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior advocate who is appearing in LPA No.566 of 2017 the first case which is under Gram Panchayat Act 2006, has opened his argument with a categorical statement that all these applications and appeals are arising out of the orders passed by the State Election Commissioner declaring the Returned candidate disqualified. The learned senior counsel submits that once the election is over, challenge to the election of a Returned candidate may be made only and only in accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 and 139 of the Bihar Gram Panchayat Raj Act. It is his submission that the Election Commissioner cannot assume upon himself a jurisdiction to decide and adjudicate upon the issues which are seriously contested by the parties and even though the issue pertains to one of the conditions of disqualification as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006, the Election Commissioner would have no power of adjudication. 134. Learned senior counsel submits that by the amendment brought by Act no.10 of 2009 in Section 136 (2), no doubt the Election Commissioner has been conferred with the power to decide the complaint raising question of disqualification before or after the election, but by virtue of Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 136, the Legislatures have made it clear that the Election Commissioner shall not decide the pure election disputes (emphasis supplied) such as corrupt practice as defined under Section 141, improper rejection of nomination form, etc. It is thus submitted that what has been allowed to be looked into by the Election Commissioner is an issue of 'disqualification' alone, therefore, the corollary of it would be that the issues of 'disqualification' which have been allowed to be agitated before the State Election Commissioner is not a pure election dispute. It is thus submitted that what has been allowed to be looked into by the Election Commissioner is an issue of 'disqualification' alone, therefore, the corollary of it would be that the issues of 'disqualification' which have been allowed to be agitated before the State Election Commissioner is not a pure election dispute. If it is so, the contention of learned senior counsel is that the seriously disputed issues which may be one of the basis of disqualification would be required to be adjudicated by the competent court where the parties shall be free to adduce evidences and the competent court would decide the issue based on the evidence. 135. Learned senior counsel has taken this Court to Article 243-F of the Constitution of India to submit that Article 243-F prescribes that a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a Panchayat- (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty-one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. Clause (2) of Article 243-F provides that " If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause(1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide." Article 243F nowhere refers 'qualification' being an issue to be referred to the authority such as State Election Commission, therefore State Government lacks competence to confer power upon State Election Commission to decide a matter which involves an issue of qualification in terms of Section 135 of the Act of 2006. 136. Learned senior counsel thereafter refers Article 243-K (4) which provides that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. 136. Learned senior counsel thereafter refers Article 243-K (4) which provides that subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. It is submitted that after having provided for the powers of the Legislature of a State to make a law with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats, the legislatures have drafted Article 243-O which creates a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. This Article 243-O starts with non-obstante clause stating 'Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution." Clause (b) of Article 243-O provides that no election to any panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. It is submitted that from a bare reading of the Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India it would appear that it starts with word 'no', followed by word 'shall' and it says that no election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition, therefore it essentially means that the Constitution does not permit interference with the election in any form or manner whatsoever. 137. It is submitted that if in the garb of a declaration that a Returned candidate has incurred disqualification, the State Election Commissioner is allowed to unsettle an elected candidate, it would amount to conferring him with power to call the election of a Returned candidate in question which cannot be done save and except by way of an election petition. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that given the admitted position in law that the State Election Commissioner has no power either to receive evidence like a civil court or to adjudicate the election disputes, it would be going against the basic feature of the Constitution if the Election Commissioner is allowed to unsettle a democratically elected candidate. It would amount to conferring power upon the Election Commissioner to undo the election of a candidate only by an executive fiat by allowing him to decide the disputed and contentious issues which is normally decided through a common law remedy. 138. It would amount to conferring power upon the Election Commissioner to undo the election of a candidate only by an executive fiat by allowing him to decide the disputed and contentious issues which is normally decided through a common law remedy. 138. It is submitted that though under sub-section (2) of Section 136 the legislatures have used the word 'any disqualification' mentioned in Section 135', they are essentially referring to Section 135 which deals with 'qualification' for membership, meaning thereby that under sub-section (2) of Section 136, the State Election Commissioner may assume powers to decide even the question of 'qualification' which is a pre-election cause of action. According to Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel, if any candidate has/had any grievance with respect to the 'qualification' of a candidate and he alleges that the Returned candidate did not possess the qualification as envisaged under Section 135, he had an opportunity to file an election petition within a period of thirty days from the date of declaration of result and such issue of 'qualification' by virtue of Section 139(1)(a) of the Act of 2006 and Section 479(1)(a) of the Act of 2007 being a ground available, could have been considered only by an Election Tribunal in a duly constituted election petition but the mischief sought to be done is that in the garb of using word 'any disqualification' mentioned in Section 135' in fact the State Election Commissioner has been conferred with the power to decide the matter of 'qualification' of a candidate in terms of Section 135 which is not permissible. 139. Following the arguments of Mr. Y.V. Giri, senior advocate, Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, learned advocate, submits that pre-election disqualification as well as the issue of qualification in terms of Section 135 would be covered in the grounds stated under Section 139(1)(a) of the Act of 2006 for presenting an election petition. Learned counsel submits that so far as the post-election disqualification is concerned, the State Election Commissioner may decide the complaint or can even suo-moto examine the issue of disqualification of a Returned candidate if he is in possession of a positive evidence of disqualification but the State Election Commissioner cannot usurp the power of adjudication upon himself to decide the seriously contested issue of disqualification. It is submitted that for example if there is a dispute with respect to date of birth and that is sought to be made a ground for rendering disqualified an elected candidate, if the elected candidate contest the issue and such contest requires the parties to adduce their respective evidences, the same may be done only before a competent Civil Court as the State Election Commissioner would have no authority of law to adjudicate upon such contested issues, at the same time it is not a pure election dispute. 140. Learned counsel submits that perusal of Rule 106 read with Rule 111 of the Rules 2006 would show that the provisions of Civil Procedure Code as well as provisions of Indian Evidence Act shall apply in relation to an election petition. It is submitted that in terms of Rule 112 of the Rules of 2006, if after hearing, the court of law/prescribed authority decides that elected person is guilty of corrupt practice under the provisions of Section 139 read with 141 of the Act, it may be declared that the election of such candidate is void and can order for re-election. The court of law/prescribed authority under the provisions of Section 140 of the Act may also declare another candidate as elected. 141. It is pointed out that a bare reading of Section 139 of the Act of 2006 would show that it prescribes the grounds for declaring the election to be void. An election may be declared void on the grounds inter alia that on the date of his election, a Returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act. This ground makes it clear that all those qualification and disqualification issues which were present as on the date of election could be a ground for declaration of the election of a Returned candidate to be void. The word 'to be chosen' under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 139 clearly provides the intention of the legislatures as they have not incorporated the word 'and for being' as is appearing under Article 243-F of the Constitution of India. Article 243-F deals with disqualification for membership 'for being chosen' and for being a member of the Panchayat'. The word 'to be chosen' under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 139 clearly provides the intention of the legislatures as they have not incorporated the word 'and for being' as is appearing under Article 243-F of the Constitution of India. Article 243-F deals with disqualification for membership 'for being chosen' and for being a member of the Panchayat'. While enacting Section 139 of the Act of 2006 if the legislatures have incorporated only word 'to be chosen' under Clause (a) of sub-section(1) of Section 139, it essentially means that they were conscious of the fact that the post-election disqualification would not be a ground for challenging the election in which a candidate has already been declared elected. 142. It is submitted that the legislatures were fully aware that the State Election Commissioner has been empowered to decide the matter of disqualification prior to or after the election, still they have provided pre-election disqualification as a ground for filing of the election petition. Issue of Qualification and Disqualification 143. Mr. Mrigank Mauli representing one of the appellants submits that the word 'qualification' and 'disqualification' are not synonyms rather those are two different words which have been used by the legislatures under two different Sections i.e. Section 135 and 136 of the Act of 2006. He has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Mohiuddin Vs. Election Tribunal, (1959) AIR Allahabad 357. Learned counsel submits that in his case the Election Commission referred the District Magistrate the issue as to the correctness of the caste certificate of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that on receipt of the report of the District Magistrate, the State Election Commissioner proceeded to consider the correctness of the caste certificate which according to him could not have been done by him because the issue raised in his case was relatable to an issue of 'qualification' and not that of 'disqualification'. Learned counsel submits that the correctness of the caste certificate could be examined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Learned counsel submits that the correctness of the caste certificate could be examined only by the Caste Scrutiny Committee as envisaged by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, (1994) 6 SCC 241 and in no case the State Election Commissioner can venture to decide the validity of a caste certificate as it would require adjudicatory process for a declaration in an ultimate analysis that the Returned candidate was not qualified in terms of Section 135 of the Act of 2006. Learned counsel submits that to that extent power conferred upon the State Election Commissioner to decide the matters of what is said to be 'disqualification' mentioned in Section 135 is in fact an issue of qualification mentioned in Section 135. It is submitted that the word 'disqualification' mentioned in Section 135 as provided in sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 has to be read down and it should be construed as 'any disqualification' and not 'qualification' mentioned in Section 135 of the Act of 2006. (emphasis supplied) Stand of the State 144. On the other hand, Mr. P.K. Verma learned senior counsel representing the State of Bihar submits that in order to understand the scheme of the Constitution of India with respect to Gram Panchayats, it would be essential to take a look at various Articles of the Constitution with regard to the elections of Parliament, State Legislatures and then provisions of the Representation of People Act which is mandate of Article 84 and 173 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel submits that Article 73 provides the extent of executive power of the Union, Article 84 talks of qualification for membership of Parliament, Article 101 falls under the head note 'Disqualifications of Members'. Article 102 which is at pari materia with Article 243-F provides disqualifications for membership of either house of Parliament. Article 191 provides for disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and Article 192 provides that any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. Clause (2) of Article 192 provides that before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. 145. Learned senior counsel submits that from perusal of Article 103 and 192 of the Constitution of India it will appear that in case of the members of either house of Parliament, the decision of the President and in case of the members of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State the decision of the Governor on any question of disqualification post-election shall be final. Learned senior counsel therefore submits that if the President and the Governor who are the Executives have been conferred with the power to decide an issue of post-election disqualification, there is no reason as to why the State Election Commissioner cannot be conferred with such power through legislative enactment of the State. Learned senior counsel submits that power to decide on the question of disqualification 'includes' the power to decide on the question of 'qualification' as well. 146. Mr. Verma has further submitted that Article 84 of the Constitution of India prescribes the qualification for membership of Parliament. Further Article 173 prescribes the qualification for membership of the State legislature. It is his submission that the Representation of People Act is nothing but a mandate of the Article 84 and 173 of the Constitution of India. He also points out that Section 100 of the Representation of People Act is at pari materia with Section 139 of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. It is one of the contentions of the learned senior counsel representing the State that the powers have been conferred upon the State Election Commissioner to decide the question of disqualification because there are several instances where an elected candidate suppressed the material facts effecting the election, had concealed his disqualification which came to the notice of the complainant or the State Election Commission after the expiry of period of limitation for filing of the election petition. In such circumstances an expeditious remedy was required to deal with such situations whereunder an elected candidate who was either suffering from pre-election disqualification or had incurred disqualification after election should not have continued for a longer time. 147. In such circumstances an expeditious remedy was required to deal with such situations whereunder an elected candidate who was either suffering from pre-election disqualification or had incurred disqualification after election should not have continued for a longer time. 147. It is submitted that taking note of this situation, an additional forum has been created by conferring power upon the State Election Commissioner to decide the question of pre-election and post-election disqualifications. It is submitted that the Election Commissioner is not substituting the Election Tribunal and, therefore, the conferment of power on the Election Commissioner to go into the issue of disqualification cannot be said to be in conflict with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel has referred and relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Md. Alamgir Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2014) 1 PLJR 562 . 148. Mr. Verma has further submitted that Article 243-F is akin to Article 192 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that Article 243-O which creates a bar to interference by the Courts in electoral matters is akin to Article 329 of the Constitution of India. Article 329(b) is at pari materia with Article 243-O (b), the only difference between the two provisions is that while Article 243-O applies to the elections to the Panchayats, Article 329 (b) would apply to the elections to either of the Parliament or to the house or either house of Legislature of a State. Both the provisions make it clear that no election to these institutions shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authorities and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. Learned counsel has further relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2014) 8 SCC 319 (para 22) to submit that it is well settled in law that where there is a special provision it would prevail over the general provision. It is submitted that Article 243-F does permit creation of an additional forum which has been done by creating forum of State Election Commissioner to decide the issue of disqualification. Plea of the State Election Commission 149. Mr. It is submitted that Article 243-F does permit creation of an additional forum which has been done by creating forum of State Election Commissioner to decide the issue of disqualification. Plea of the State Election Commission 149. Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned counsel representing the State Election Commission has also referred the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution of India to submit that once the Constitution has created a forum with regard to the members of the Parliament and the members of the State Legislatures then there is no wrong in providing a forum to the members of the Panchayats where the matters relating to the disqualifications pre or post election may be considered. Consideration 150. Having heard learned senior counsel as well as learned counsel representing the parties, I would proceed to consider the questions referred to this Bench by reproducing some of the Articles of the Constitution of India which have been discussed and cited at the bar, hereinbelow:- Articles relevant to the members of the Parliament Articles relevant to the members of the State Legislative Assembly Articles relevant to the members of the Panchayats Articles relevant to the members of the Municipality Article 84. Qualification for membership of Parliament.—A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he— (a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule; (b) is, in the case of a seat in the Council of States, not less than thirty years of age and, in the case of a seat in the House of the People, not less than twenty-five years of age; and (c) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament. 101. Vacation of seats.— (1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other. 101. Vacation of seats.— (1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other. (2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person‘s seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State. (3) If a member of either House of Parliament— (a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of article 102, or (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant: Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation. (4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant: Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days. 102. 102. Disqualifications for membership.— (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament— (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State, other than an office declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder; (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State. (2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule. 103. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members.— (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 102, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final. (2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution — (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. 329A. 329A. [Special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.] Repealed by the Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, section 36 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979) Article 173. Qualification for membership of the State Legislature.- A Person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he – (a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorized in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule; (b) is, in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly, not less than twenty- five years of age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative Council, not less than thirty years of age; and (c) possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by the Parliament. 190. Vacation of seats.—(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of the Legislature of a State and provision shall be made by the Legislature of the State by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one house or the other. (2) No person shall be a member of the Legislatures of two or more States specified in the First Schedule and if a person is chosen a member of the Legislatures of two or more such States, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person‘s seat in the Legislatures of all such States shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislatures of all but one of the States. (3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State — (a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of article 191; or (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon becomes vacant: Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation. (4) If for a period of sixty days a member of a House of the Legislature of a State is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant: Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days. 191. Disqualifications for membership.— (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State— (a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder; (b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (c) if he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign State; (e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State. Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for such State. (2) A person shall be disqualified for being a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so disqualified under the Tenth Schedule 192. Decision on questions as to disqualifications of members. — (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of article 191, the question shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. (2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution — (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. 329A. [Special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.] Repealed by the Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, section 36 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979) 243F. Disqualifications for membership. 329A. [Special provision as to elections to Parliament in the case of Prime Minister and Speaker.] Repealed by the Constitution (Forty fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, section 36 (w.e.f. 20-6-1979) 243F. Disqualifications for membership. — (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Panchayat— (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty -one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. (2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Panchayat has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. 243K. Elections to the Panchayats.— (1) The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of a State, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the State Election Commissioner shall be such as the Governor may by rule determine: Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of a High Court and the conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment. (3) The Governor of a State shall, when so requested by the State Election Commission, make available to the State Election Commission such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the State Election Commission by clause (1). (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. (4) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Panchayats. 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 243V. Disqualifications for membership.— (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of a Municipality— (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State concerned: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty-five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty -one years; (b) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. (2) If any question arises as to whether a member of a Municipality has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. 243ZA. Elections to the Municipalities. —(1) The superintendence , direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities shall be vested in the State Election Commission referred to in article 243K. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. 243ZG. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Legislature of a State may, by law, make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections to the Municipalities. 243ZG. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.— Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,— (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. 151. Similarly, the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act, Gram Panchayat Raj Act and the Bihar Municipal Act are reproduced hereunder for a ready reference:- Relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act Relevant provisions of the Gram Panchayat Raj Act Relevant provisions of the Bihar Municipal Act 100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.—8[(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if 3[the High Court] is of opinion— (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act 9[or the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963)]; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or ------------------------- 1. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, s. 53, for "the returned candidate". 2. The word "or" and clause (d) omitted by s. 53, ibid. 3. Subs. by Act 47 of 1966, s. 42, for "the Tribunal" (w.e.f. 14-12-1966). 4. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, s. 54, for cl. (a). 5. Certain words omitted by Act 58 of 1958, s. 29. 6. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, s. 54, for "no person shall be named". 7. Subs. by s. 54, ibid., for sub-section (2). 8. Subs. by s. 55, ibid., for sub-sections (1) and (2). 9. Ins. by Act 20 of 1963, s. 57 and the Second Sch. (a). 5. Certain words omitted by Act 58 of 1958, s. 29. 6. Subs. by Act 27 of 1956, s. 54, for "no person shall be named". 7. Subs. by s. 54, ibid., for sub-section (2). 8. Subs. by s. 55, ibid., for sub-sections (1) and (2). 9. Ins. by Act 20 of 1963, s. 57 and the Second Sch. the words "or the Government of Part C States Act, 1951 (49 of 1951)" were omitted by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1956. (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected— (i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate 1 [by an agent other than his election agent], or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non— compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, 2 [the High Court] shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.] 3 [(2)] If in the opinion of 2 [the High Court], a returned candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election agent, of any corrupt practice 4*** but 2 [the High Court] is satisfied— (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate or his election agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders, and 5 [without the consent], of the candidate or his election agent; 6* * * * * (c) that the candidate and his election agent took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt 7*** practices at the election; and (d) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt 7*** practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agents, then 2 [the High Court] may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void. 135. 135. Qualification for Membership- Every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Panchayat constituency shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Panchayat : Provided that in the case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women, no person who is not a member of any of the Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or is not a woman, as the case maybe, shall be qualified to be elected to such seat. 136. 136. Disqualification for Membership - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as Mukhiya, member of the Gram Panchayat, Sarpanch, Panch of the Gram Katchahri, member of the Panchayat Samiti and member of Zila Parishad, if such person — (a) is not a citizen of India ; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of elections to the Legislature of the State : Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty five years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years; (c) is in the service of Central or State Government or any local authority ; (d) is in service of any such institution receiving aid from Central or State Government or any local authority; (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal court whether within or out of India to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for good behavior under section 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (i) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Panchayat; (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices, Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after six years of general election. (2) If any question arises as to whether Member of Panchayat at any level including Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Pramukh of Panchayat Samiti or Adhyaksh of Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Kutchahry or Panch of Gram kutchhary was disqualified before election or has incurred disqualification after election as provided in Article 243-F of Constitution of India and subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Section 135 or sub-Section (1) of Section 136, the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commissioner. The matter of disqualification before or after election may be brought to the notice of State Election Commission in the form of complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suo motu cognizance of such disqualification and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard. Provided that the State Election Commission shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petition subject matter of which is purely an election dispute such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. In accordance with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act. (3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of Panchayat, a Mukhiya, a Sarpanch [or Panch] 3 is or becomes member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, or is or becomes a Municipal Councillor or a Councillor of a Municipal Corporation or a Member of a Sanitary Board, or a member of a Nagar Panchayat or a member of any other Panchayat or Mukhiya, Sarpanch [or Panch] 3 , then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member of Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, or of a Councillor of Municipality or Municipal Corporation or a Member of Sanitary Board or Nagar Panchayat or a Member of other Panchayat or Mukhiya or Sarpanch [or Panch] 3 , his seat in the Panchayat shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, State Legislative Assembly or State Legislative Council, Municipality or the Municipal Corporation, Sanitary Board or the Nagar Panchayat or of any such Panchayat as the case may be. (4) Oath and affirmation - Immediately after election a member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry and Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat shall make and subscribe before such person as the State Election Commission may appoint in this behalf, an oath or affirmation and if such member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry or Mukhiya declines or otherwise refuses to make and subscribe such oath or affirmation as aforesaid shall be deemed to have vacated his office forthwith. If such member of a Panchayat, Sarpanch or Panch of a Gram Katchahry or Mukhiya fails to make and subscribe an oath/affirmation after election and within three months of the date on which his term of office commences, his seat on the expiry of the said period shall be deemed to have become vacant. 137. Election Petition - (1) The election to any office of a Panchayat or a Gram Katchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed : Provided that if an election to any office of a Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchahry is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Gram Panchayat or Gram Katchahry is situated and if the election to any office of Panchayat Samiti or to a Zila Parishad is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad, as the case may be, is situated. (2) “Parties to the petition—A petitioner shall join as a respondent to his petition— (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. 139. 139. Grounds for declaring election to be void -(1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion – (a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any noncompliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the Prescribed Authority, any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then the Prescribed Authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void. 140. 140. Grounds on which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected - (1) If any person who has filed an election petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claims a declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected and the Prescribed Authority is of opinion- (a) that in fact the petitioner or such other candidate received a majority of the valid votes; or (b) that but for the votes obtained by the returned candidate by corrupt practices the petitioner or such other candidate would have obtained a majority of the valid votes, the Prescribed Authority shall after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have been duly elected. (2) The decision of the Prescribed Authority shall be final. 475. Qualification for Membership.- Every person whose name is in the list of voters of any Municipality constituency shall, unless disqualified under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to be elected as a member or office bearer of the Municipality : Provided that in the case of seats reserved for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or Women, no person who is not a member of any of the Schedule Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes or is not a woman, as the case may be, shall be qualified to be elected to such seat. 18. Disqualifications.– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post as member of the Municipality if such person – (a) is not a citizen of India; (b) is so disqualified by or under any law, for the time being in force, for the purpose of elections to the Legislature of the State: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than twenty one years of age, if he has attained the age of twenty one years; (c) is in the service of the Central or State Government or any local Authority; (d) is in the service of any such institution receiving aids from the Central or State Government or any local authority. (e) has been adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind; (f) has been dismissed from the service of the Central or State Government or any local authority for misconduct and has been declared to be disqualified for employment in the public service; (g) has been sentenced by a criminal Court, whether within or without India, to imprisonment for an offence, other than a political offence, for a term exceeding six months or has been ordered to furnish security for keeping good behaviour under section- 109 or section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act 2, 1974) and such sentence or order not having subsequently been reversed; or absconding being an accused in a criminal case for more than six months. (h) has under any law for the time being in force become ineligible to be a member of any local authority; (i) holds any salaried office or office of profit under the Municipality; (j) has been found guilty of corrupt practices; Provided that on being found guilty of corrupt practices, the disqualification shall cease after 6 (six) years of general election; (k) if he has not paid all taxes due by him to the Municipality at the end of the financial year immediately preceding that in which the election is held. (l) has been wilfully omits or refuses to perform his duties and functions or abuses the power vested in him or is found to be guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or become physically or mentally in capacitated for performing his duties (m) If he has more than two living children:— provided that a person having more than two children on or upto the expiry of one year of the commencement of the Ordinance, shall not be deemed to be disqualified." (n) Has been absent from three consecutive meetings or sitting of the Municipality without having previously obtained permission form the councillors at a meeting. (2) If any question arises as to whether a Member of a Municipality at any level was disqualified before election or has incurred disqualification after election as provided in Article-243-V of the Constitution of India and subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 475 or the subject to any of the disqualification mentioned in subsection (1) of Section 18, the question shall be referred for the decision of State Election Commissioner. The matter of disqualification may be brought to the notice of the State Election Commission in the form of a complaint, application or information by any person or authority. The State Election Commission may also take suo-motu cognizance of such matters and decide such matters expeditiously after allowing sufficient opportunity to the affected parties of being heard. (3) If a person, who is chosen as a member of a Municipality, is or becomes a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council ; or is or becomes a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch then within fifteen days from the date of commencement of the term of office of a member of the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or a member of a Panchayat or Mukhia or Sarpanch, his seat in the Municipality shall become vacant unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Legislative Assembly, Legislative Council or Panchayat, as the case may be. 474. Disqualification on failure to lodge account of election expenses.- If the State Election Commission is satisfied that a person- (a) has failed to lodge an account of election expenses within the time and manner required by or under this Act, and (b) has no good reason or justification for the failure, the State Election Commission shall by order declare him to be disqualified and any such person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from the date of the order. 445. Furnishing of certain information essential for candidates — (1) A candidate shall, apart from any information which he is required to furnish in his nomination papers delivered under the Act or the rules made thereunder, also furnish information on affidavit on the following aspects in relation to his/her candidature— (i) Whether he is convicted/acquitted/discharged of any criminal offence in the past- if any, whether he is punished with imprisonment or fine; (ii) Prior to six months of filing of nominations, whether the candidate is accused in any pending case, of any offence punishable with imprisonment for more than six months, and in which a charge has been framed or cognizance has been taken by a competent court of law. If so, the details thereof. (iii) The assets (including movable, immovable and bank balances, etc.) of a candidate, and of his/her spouse and that of dependents. If so, the details thereof. (iii) The assets (including movable, immovable and bank balances, etc.) of a candidate, and of his/her spouse and that of dependents. (iv) Liabilities, if any, particularly whether there are any over dues of any public financial institution or government dues. (v) The educational qualifications of the candidate. (2) In case of non-furnishing of the affidavit by any candidate, the nomination of the concerned candidate shall be liable to rejection by the returning officer at the time of scrutiny of nominations for such non-furnishing of the affidavit. (3) The information so furnished by each candidate in the aforesaid affidavit shall be disseminated by the respective returning officer by displaying a copy of the affidavit on the notice board of his office and also by making the copies thereof available freely and liberally to the representatives of the print and electronic media and to any other candidate of person on deposit of fee prescribed by the Commission. (4) If any rival candidate furnishes information to the contrary by means of a duly sworn affidavit, then such affidavit of the rival candidate shall also be disseminated along with the affidavit of the candidate concerned in the manner directed above. 446. Candidate to furnish information only under the Act and the rules — Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any direction, order or any other instruction issued by the State Election Commission, no candidate shall be liable to disclose or furnish any such information, in respect of his election, which is not required to be disclosed or furnished under this Act or the rules made thereunder. 447. Penalty for filing false affidavit, etc.— A candidate who himself or through his proposer, with intent to be elected in an election, — (i) fails to furnish information relating to section 472, or (ii) gives false information which he knows or has reason to believe to be false; or (iii) conceals any information, in his nomination paper or in his affidavit which is required to be delivered, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. 476.Election Petition.- (1) The election to any office of a Municipality shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed : Provided that if an election to any office of a Nagar Panchyat is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such Munsif within whose jurisdiction such Nagar Panchyat is situated and if the election to any office of Municipal Council and Municipal Corporation is under dispute, the election petition shall lie before such sub-Judge within whose jurisdiction such Municipality is situated. (2) Parties to the petition— A petitioner shall join as a respondent to his petition— (a) Where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidates has been duly elected, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates; and (b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. 477. An election petition. — (a) shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; (b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the Commission of each such practice; and (c) shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings: Provided that where the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. (d) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 478. (d) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall also be signed by the petitioner and verified in the same manner as the petition. 478. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.-Not withstanding anything contained in this Act – (a) The validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243 ZA of the Constitution of India shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority under this Act. 479. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub section (2) if the prescribed authority is of opinion – (a) that on the date of his election, a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a member under this Act; or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his agent; or (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected : (i) by the improper acceptance of any nomination; or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the returned candidate by an agent; or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void; or (iv) by any noncompliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules or orders made thereunder; the prescribed authority shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. (2) If in the opinion of the Prescribed Authority, any agent of a returned candidate has been guilty of any corrupt practice, but the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at the election by the candidate and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the consent of the candidate; (b) that the candidate took all reasonable measures for preventing the commission of corrupt practices at the election; and (c) that in all other respects the election was free from any corrupt practice on the part of the candidate or any of his agent; then the Prescribed Authority may decide that the election of the returned candidate is not void. 152. On perusal of the comparative chart above it is crystal clear that under Article 243-K the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral roll for and conduct of all elections in the Panchayat shall be vested with the State Election Commission. Article 243ZA is at parimateria for the Municipalities. Article 243-F and Article 243-V are providing for competence of the State legislature to provide for disqualifications for membership of the Panchayats and the Municipality by bringing an appropriate legislation. Clause (2) of Article 243-F and 243-V confers power upon the State legislature to name the authority to whom the question of 'disqualifications' mentioned in Clause(1) shall be referred for a decision. The State legislature competence to confer power upon the State Election Commissioner as an authority to decide a reference on the question of disqualifications, thus cannot be questioned. At the same time I find that neither under Article 243F nor under 243V the State legislatures are competitive to confer power upon such authority to examine a matter relating to qualifications. It is further found that Section 135 of the Act of 2006 and Section 475 of the Act of 2007 in respect of Gram Panchayats and Municipality are at pari materia. Section 136(1) of the Act of 2006 and Section 18(1) of the Act of 2007 are also at pari-materia. Similarly subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2007 are similarly conferring powers upon the State Election Commissioner to decide a question as to disqualification before election or after election. Similarly subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 and sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2007 are similarly conferring powers upon the State Election Commissioner to decide a question as to disqualification before election or after election. Again Section 475 of the Act of 2007 talks of qualification for membership but under sub-section (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2007 it has been referred as ".....any of the disqualification mentioned in Section 475....". Like Section 137 of the Act of 2006 which provides that election to any office of the panchayat or a gram Kutchahry shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed, Section 476 of the Act of 2007 states that the election of any office of a municipality shall not be called in question except by an election petition as prescribed. Section 139 of the Act of 2006 enlists the grounds for declaring the election to be void, Section 479 of the Act of 2007 provides the grounds for declaring the election to be void. Section 139(1) (a) provides one of the grounds for challenging the election if on the date of election returned candidate was not 'qualified' or was 'disqualified', to be chosen as a member under the Act, in identical terms Section 479(1) (a) provides the same ground. The issue of 'qualification' has, thus been provided as a ground for challenge of an election of a returned candidate which may be done only by way of an election petition. 153. Upon a comparative study of the aforesaid provisions under the two Acts, I am of the considered opinion that question referred to be answered by this Special Bench in LPA No.1425 of 2014 will equally govern the identical issues arising in the cases under the Act of 2006. 154. The issue of 'qualification' and 'disqualification' are to be resolved. Thus, at this stage, it would be important to take note of the meaning of the word 'qualification' and 'disqualification'. In the Oxford English Dictionary (founded mainly on the materials collected by the philogical society) in Volume 8', the word 'qualification' has been defined as a necessary condition, imposed by law or custom which must be fulfilled or complied with before a certain right can be acquired or exercised, an office held or the like. The word 'disqualification' is a word of noun. The word 'disqualification' is a word of noun. It means the action of disqualifying or depriving of requisite qualifications; legal incapicitation; also the fact of condition of being disqualified. That which disqualifies or prevents from being qualified; a ground or cause of incapicitation. 155. In the case of Ghulam Mohiuddin Vs. Election Tribunal for Town Area Sakit and another the Hon'ble Full Bench of Allahabad High Court was considering the power of Election Tribunal to determine the question arising in course of an Election Petition challenging the validity of election of the President of Town Area Committee under the U.P. Town Areas Act (2 of 1914) on the ground that the names of the certain persons who were not qualified to vote had been wrongly entered in the electoral rolls. In the said case a preliminary issue was raised before the Election Tribunal saying that the electoral roll was final and its correctness could not be challenged in the proceedings before the Election Tribunal, but the said preliminary objection was rejected by the Election Tribunal by holding that the Tribunal would go into the question whether certain persons whose names were entered in the electoral roll were lawful voters or not. The decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition with a prayer to quash the order of the Election Tribunal. Considering the issue in hand the Hon'ble Judges who delivered the majority judgment considered the following provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act 1914. The decision of the Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court by way of a writ petition with a prayer to quash the order of the Election Tribunal. Considering the issue in hand the Hon'ble Judges who delivered the majority judgment considered the following provisions of the United Provinces Town Areas Act 1914. Sub-section (2) of Section 8- A of the United Provinces Town Areas Act 1914 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is : "The chairman shall be elected by the electors of the town area at an election held simultaneously with the general election of members of the committee." Sub-section (4-A) of Section 8-A of the Act is: "No election of the Chairman shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under this Act." (5) Rule 5 of The Uttar Pradesh Town Areas (Conduct of Election of Chairman) Rules 1953 is : "Electors for election of Chairman -- The electors in a town area shall for the purpose of election of the chairman, be the electors entered in the electoral rolls of the wards of that town area and it shall not be necessary to prepare or revise separately the electoral rolls for the election of the Chairman." (6) Clause (13) of Section 2 of the Act provides : "elector', in relation to a ward, means a person whose name is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of that ward." It follows therefore that the electors for the purpose of election of the Chairman are the persons whose names are for the time being entered in the electoral rolls of the wards of the Town Area. The expression "for the time being" is significant and can only mean that the entries are to be taken as final for the purpose of holding that those persons are the electors of the Town Area. The status of an elector is given by the entry of the name in the electoral roll. (7) Section 6-F. of the Act is : "(1) No person who is not, and except as ex* pressly provided by this Act, every person who is, tor the time being entered in the electoral roll of any ward, shall be entitled to vote in that ward. (7) Section 6-F. of the Act is : "(1) No person who is not, and except as ex* pressly provided by this Act, every person who is, tor the time being entered in the electoral roll of any ward, shall be entitled to vote in that ward. (2) No person shall vote at an election in any ward if he is subject to any of the disqualifications provided for by or under this Act. (3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than one ward, and if a person votes in more than one such ward, his votes in all such wards shall be void. (4) No person shall at any election vote in the same ward more than once, notwithstanding that his name may have been registered in the electoral rolls for that ward more than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that ward shall be void. (5) No person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the Police : Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a person subject to detention under any law for the time being in force." 156. The Hon'ble Full Bench while discussing the aforesaid provisions recorded as under:- "These provisions also mean that every person whose name is for the time being entered in an electoral roll has the right to vote. His right to vote cannot therefore be questioned at any stage -- be it at the time of the election or at the stage of the hearing of the election petition after election. His right is however taken away if for any reason he happens to be subject to any of the disqualifications provided for by or under the Act." 157. Thereafter the Hon'ble Full Bench in paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment recorded as under :- "9. Section 6-H of the Act empowers the State Government to apply, by Order, to an election under the Act the provisions of the U.P. Municipalities Act 1916 regarding the preparation and publication of electoral rolls for each ward including qualifications and disqualifications for registration in the electoral rolls. Sections 12-B to 12-H of the Municipalities Act have been applied to an election under the Act. Sections 12-B to 12-H of the Municipalities Act have been applied to an election under the Act. Section 12-C of the Municipalities Act is: "12-C. Subject to the provisions of Section 12-D, every person who is qualified to be registered in the Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the ward or whose name is entered therein shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of the ward." Section 12-D is: "12-D. (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he is disqualified for registration in the Assembly rolls. (2) The name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll of the ward in which it is included; Provided that the name of any person struck off the electoral roll of a ward by reason of disqualification under sub-section (1) shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll if such dis-qualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under the provisions of this Act, or under any other law authorizing such removal". 10. Section 16 of the Representation of The People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) is: "Disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll -- (1) A person shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll if he - (a) is not a citizen of India; or (b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent Court; or (c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt and illegal practices and other offences in connection with elections. (2) The name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll in which it is included. Provided that the name of any person struck off the electoral roll of a constituency by reason of a disqualification under clause (c) of sub-section (1) shall forthwith be reinstated in that roll if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in force, removed under any law authorising such removal". 158. Considering the issue of 'qualification' and 'disqualification' the Hon'ble Full Bench in paragraph 12 held that a disqualification is therefore not identical with the absence of qualification. Paragraph 12 is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:- "12. The age and residence therefore were considered as conditions for registration. 158. Considering the issue of 'qualification' and 'disqualification' the Hon'ble Full Bench in paragraph 12 held that a disqualification is therefore not identical with the absence of qualification. Paragraph 12 is quoted hereunder for a ready reference:- "12. The age and residence therefore were considered as conditions for registration. A person got the right to be enrolled or was qualified to be enrolled in an electoral roll if he was not less than 21 years of age and if he had resided for the prescribed period in a particular constituency. A person's non-residence for the prescribed period or not attaining the age of 21 years is not his disqualification for registration but amounts to his being not qualified to be registered. So long as one is not qualified no question of disqualification arises. According to Murray's New English Dictionary, 'disqualification' means "the action of depriving of requisite qualifications" and 'to disqualify' means 'to deprive of the qualifications required for some purpose.' A disqualification is therefore not identical with the absence of qualification. It is further to be noticed that Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act provides for the striking off the name from the electoral roll of a person who becomes disqualified after registration and docs not provide for the striking off the name of a person who was disqualified but whose disqualification could not be discovered at the time of entering his name in the electoral roll. His disqualification could be considered by the Election Tribunal if he had exercised his right to vote on the basis of the entry of his name in the electoral roll of a particular constituency." 159. Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L. Chaturvedi (as His Lordship then was) who constituted the majority view in his separate judgment, in paragraph 26 recorded as under:- "26. The law laid down above still holds the field in England and it is well settled there that it is not open to a Tribunal which has to enquire into elections to consider the correctness of the entry in a register of voters, except in so far as to sec whether the person whose name is entered was prohibited from voting by any statute or by the common law of Parliament. I think the Representation of the People Act has adopted the same principle and that is the reason why separate provisions have been made laying down the conditions of registration in the electoral roll for Assembly constituency and those laying down disqualifications for registry in the roll. Section 19 of the Act deals with the former and Section 16 with the latter. As far as the preparation of the electoral roll itself is concerned, the authority responsible for its preparation has got to consider both matters. It has to see whether a citizen fulfils the conditions of registration and also whether he is disqualified for registration in the roll. There was no reason for providing for the above two matters under two separate sections of the Act so far as the preparation of the roll was concerned. It could easily have been said under Section 16 that a person shall be disqualified for registration in the electoral roll if he was less than 21 years of age and if he did not ordinarily reside in the constituency. The only reason for making two separate provisions about qualifications and disqualifications, in my opinion is that the two have been treated differently, as in England, so far as the binding nature of the entry in the electoral roll is concerned. If a person's name has been entered in the electoral roll, as it has been finally prepared, the entry would be taken to be conclusive proof of the fact that the person fulfils the conditions, namely, that he was not less than 21 years of age and was ordinarily resident in the constituency. But the position with respect to the disqualifications enumerated in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act is different. In spite of the entry in the electoral roll, it is open to an election tribunal to see whether the person was really disqualified for registration in the roll. Finality has been given to the decision of the Officer preparing the roll in so far as the fulfilment of conditions of registration is concerned. But it has not been considered desirable to extend the same finality to the decision on the subject of disqualifications; as the latter is a more serious matter. The U. P. Town Areas Act is quite explicit on the point. But it has not been considered desirable to extend the same finality to the decision on the subject of disqualifications; as the latter is a more serious matter. The U. P. Town Areas Act is quite explicit on the point. Section 6-F(1) says, "No person who is not, and except as expressly provided by this Act, every person who is, for the time being entered in the electoral roll of any ward, shall be entitled to vote in that ward." 160. In the case of Shyamdeo Prasad Singh Vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a person suffered from any disqualification under Section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 can be gone into by court trying the election petition. The Representation of People Act 1950 was enacted to provide for, inter-alia, the qualifications of voter at election to House of the People and the Legislature of State the preparation of electoral rolls and matters connected therewith were left untouched by the latter Act of 1951. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that Article 326 of the Constitution having recognized the doctrine of adult suffrage has laid down constitutional parameters providing for qualification and disqualification, relating to jurisdiction as a voter at any election. The two Articles i.e. Article 326 and 327 contemplates such qualification and disqualification being provided for, amongst other things, by the appropriate legislature. The fountain source of the provision of Section 16 of the 1950 Act and Section 62 of the 1951 Act enacting provisions on such subject are the said two articles of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that any enquiry into availability of these eligibility qualifications under the scheme of the 1950 Act is to be made at the time of preparation of electoral roll or while entering or striking out a name in or from the electoral roll. It was held that Section 62 of 1951 Act does not provide that a person who is not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll shall not be entitled to vote in the election. It was held that Section 62 of 1951 Act does not provide that a person who is not qualified to be enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll shall not be entitled to vote in the election. A disqualification which was held under Section 1950 Act has a relevance for and a bearing on the right to vote under Section 62 of the 1951 Act but being not qualified for enrolment in the electoral roll under Section 27 of the 1950 Act has no relevance for or bearing on the right to vote at an election under Section 62 of the 1951 Act. There Lordships held that there is a distinction between a "disqualification" and "not being qualified." The Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ghulam Mohiuddin (supra) followed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Roop Lal Mehta Vs. Dhan Singh, (1968) AIR(P&H) 1 (FB) were approved. It was held that inclusion of person or persons in the electoral roll by an authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls, though they were not qualified to be so enrolled, cannot be a ground for setting aside an election of a returned candidate under sub-clause (iii) or (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 161. Keeping in mind the aforesaid meaning of the word 'qualification' and 'disqualification' when I consider Section 135 of the Act of 2006 and Section 475 of the Act of 2007, it is found that the legislatures have used the word 'qualification for membership' in the heading of both the Sections. The only qualification for membership is that the person whose name is in the list of voters of any panchayat constituency or any municipality constituency shall be qualified but in the same Section the legislatures have clearly spelt that the person whose name is in the list of the voters shall be qualified to be elected as a member or office-bearer of the panchayat unless he is disqualified under the Act or under any other law. In other words to be elected as a member, the person whose name is there in the list of voters is 'qualified', this qualification should be coupled with the fact that he should not be disqualified under the Act or under any other law. In other words to be elected as a member, the person whose name is there in the list of voters is 'qualified', this qualification should be coupled with the fact that he should not be disqualified under the Act or under any other law. 162. Section 135 is not providing the circumstances which may be a disqualification. It is Section 136 (1) of the Act of 2006 and Section 18 of the Act of 2007 which prescribe the circumstances leading to disqualification for membership. Proviso to Section 135 is applicable in the case of seats reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes or Woman. The Proviso provides an additional condition of a qualification to be elected to such seats only if the person is a member of any of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes or Woman, as the case may be, thus for a seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes or Woman the person whose name is in the list of voters of any panchayat constituency or municipality constituency and is a member of any Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe or Backward Classes or Woman as the case may be shall be qualified to be elected for such seats. 163. Sub-section (2) of Section 136 came to be amended vide Section 16 of Amendment Act 10 of 2009. It confers power upon the State Election Commissioner to consider a matter of disqualification before or after election which may be brought to the notice of State Election Commissioner in any form of complaint or information. He has also got suo motu power to take cognizance and decide such matters. To me it appears that so far as the competence of the State legislature to create an authority and confer power upon him to decide the matter of disqualification before or after the election is concerned, the same is within the legislative competence of the State legislatures. There is no challenge to that. The challenge is to the power of adjudication and determination which are being exercised by the State Election Commission while deciding the matter which may lead to render a returned candidate disqualified post-election. There is no challenge to that. The challenge is to the power of adjudication and determination which are being exercised by the State Election Commission while deciding the matter which may lead to render a returned candidate disqualified post-election. It is the contention of the petitioners that the State Election Commission has got no trapping of the court inasmuch as it has not been conferred with any power to receive evidence from the witnesses and to compel the attendance of the witnesses. It is the contention of the petitioners that the Election Commissioner would have no power of adjudication and, therefore, if a complaint is filed or otherwise a proceeding for disqualification for membership is initiated by the State Election Commission on the grounds stated under sub-section (1) of Section 136, the State Election Commission would not be competent to adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact which would require adducement of evidence by both the parties. I am willing to agree with this submission. 164. In the case of Md. Alamgir Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 1 PLJR 562 , a learned Single Judge of this Court considered the case of the petitioner in the said case against the order passed by the State Election Commissioner by which the petitioner was declared as disqualified under subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 read with Rule 117 of the Bihar Panchayat Rules. In the said case, the petitioner claimed to be 'Momin' by caste and a member of the Extremely Backward Class for which he was issued a certificate by the District Magistrate, Banka. He had contested the election on the post of Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat Kath Bangaon against the reserved seat and was declared elected. After his selection the contesting respondent no.7 filed a complaint under Section 136(2) of the Act of 2006 with a prayer to disqualify the petitioner from holding the post of Mukhiya. The District Magistrate, Banka was directed by the State Election Commissioner to make an enquiry and submit a report regarding caste of the petitioner. The petitioner was held to belonging to caste 'Sheikh' which was not mentioned in the category of Extremely Backward Class. The Election Commission relied upon a report of the District Magistrate and declared the petitioner disqualified for holding the post of Mukhiya. The petitioner was held to belonging to caste 'Sheikh' which was not mentioned in the category of Extremely Backward Class. The Election Commission relied upon a report of the District Magistrate and declared the petitioner disqualified for holding the post of Mukhiya. In that context, the learned Single Judge had occasion to consider the scope of Section 136(2) of the Act of 2006. Paragraph 22, 23 and 24 of the judgment in Md. Alamgir (supra) takes note of the Hon'ble Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State Election Commission and Ors. Vs. Punam Kumari and Anr., (2009) 2 PLJR 189 and upon considering the amendment Act of 2009 whereby Section 136(2) was amended, the learned Single Judge held that "the intent of the Legislature is clear that in case of disqualification under Section 135 which by its very nature would be a disqualification inhering in a candidate and therefore in existence even before the election, such question would be referred for the decision of the State Election Commissioner." Then the learned Single Judge considered the question as to what would be the effect of Section 139(1)(a) of the Act and reading Section 139(1)(a) along with Section 137 the learned Single Judge held that in an election petition it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the election of a returned candidate on the ground that he did not belong to the particular backward class so as to contest the election on such seat which was reserved for the particular backward class. This, according to learned Single Judge, however, cannot have the effect of ousting the jurisdiction of the State Election Commissioner specifically granted to him under Section 136(2) of the Act as amended. It was held that it would be open to such a person to challenge the disqualification in an election petition on the ground of Section 139(1)(a) but it would also be open to the said person not to take recourse to such procedure but straightaway approach the State Election Commissioner by filing a complaint or application before it. 165. In my opinion in the case of Md. Alamgir (supra) it was not pointed out to the learned Single Judge that Section 135 of the Act of 2006 talks of 'qualification' and not 'disqualification' and the difference between the two words. 165. In my opinion in the case of Md. Alamgir (supra) it was not pointed out to the learned Single Judge that Section 135 of the Act of 2006 talks of 'qualification' and not 'disqualification' and the difference between the two words. Perhaps for that reason, the learned Single Judge took a view that question of disqualification may also arise under Section 135 of the Act. 166. Again in the case of Md. Shakil Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., (2014) 3 PLJR 624 the learned Single Judge who had authored the judgment in the case of Md. Alamgir had occasion to consider Section 135 and 136 of the Act of 2006, but this time the facts of the case suggested that the State Election Commission proceeded to consider an issue of caste dispute taking the same as a disqualification in terms of Section 135 of the Act of 2006, ignoring the fact that one Election Petition no.11 of 2011 was pending before the learned Munsif as the Election Tribunal in which the issue of disqualification on the ground of not belonging to Extremely Backward Class was pending consideration. Md. Alamgir's case was referred, but in paragraph 14 of the judgment in the case of Md. Shakil (supra) the learned Single Judge took a view that since the election petition was prior to filing of the complaint before the State Election Commission in all propriety the State Election Commission should not have proceeded any further with the complaint and ought to have allowed the matter to be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal. While holding that the State Election Commission was not without jurisdiction, the learned Single Judge held that "when the statute confers powers upon two authorities with respect to the same matter the prior order of the subsequently moved authority cannot be held to be illegal". It was further held that "in normal course it is expected that when power is conferred to two different statutory authorities, only one of them should proceed in this matter so as not to give rise to conflicting decisions and in the normal course the statutory authority whose jurisdiction has been invoked later should not proceed further in the matter but await the decision of the other statutory authority". 167. 167. On a reading of the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gulam Mohiuddin (supra), affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syamdeo Prasad Singh (supra), I would respectfully differ with the view taken by learned Single Judge in the case of Mohd. Alamgir (supra) as according to me the issues of qualifications prescribed under Section 135 of the Act of 2006 and in its corresponding provision under the Act of 2007 may be raised only before the Election Tribunal in a duly constituted election petition. The complaints with regard to entry of name of a returned candidate in the voter list of the constituency and/or a challenge to his caste certificates cannot be gone into by the State Election Commission. If limitation for filing election petition has expired and thereafter the issue of qualification under Section 135 are to be raised, such issues may be first adjudicated before a competent court/forum where parties can legally adduce evidences. Based on such adjudication only the State Election Commissioner may be moved for declaring a returned candidate disqualified for holding the post. 168. Mr. P. K. Verma, learned AAG-III representing the State of Bihar has taken a stand that if the question of disqualification mentioned in Clause (1) of Article 191 may be referred for decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final, there is no reason why the State Election Commission cannot decide the question of disqualification post-election. According to him, the question of disqualification includes the power to decide on the question of qualification as well. 169. I regret my inability to agree with the submissions of Mr. Verma, learned AAG-III as it appears to me that Article 192 of the Constitution of India has specifically provided that the question of disqualification shall be referred for the decision of the Governor and his decision shall be final. Further under Clause(2) of Article 192, before giving any decision on any such question the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. 170. Further under Clause(2) of Article 192, before giving any decision on any such question the Governor shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion. 170. It is further worth taking note of that the circumstances under a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State is also provided under Article 191 of the Constitution of India and a perusal thereof would show that those are specifically enumerated thereunder, whereas under Article 243-F and Article 243-V which are applicable in respect of Gram Panchayat and Municipality, Clause(2) of both the Articles provide that if any question arises as to whether a member of Municipality has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Clause(1), the question shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner (emphasis supplied) as the legislature of a State, may, by law, provide. The Constitution makers were well aware of the fact that under Article 192, the Governor has been vested with power to decide the question of disqualification according to opinion of the Election Commission, still in respect of Gram Panchayats and Municipality Clause (2) of the respective Articles of the Constitution of India does not name the authority who will decide on the question of disqualification. Further such authority named by the State Legislation would only be competent to decide on the question of 'disqualification' Pre or Post election but not on the 'qualification'. It has been left for the State legislature not only to name the authority who will decide the matters of disqualifications but also the manner in which such decisions are to be taken and such manner should be provided by law. 171. It is not in dispute that under Article 243-K the State Election Commissioner has been conferred with powers to hold elections of the Gram Panchayat. They have no power to receive evidence, examine witness etc. Any person who has no judicial training may be appointed as State Election Commissioner. 171. It is not in dispute that under Article 243-K the State Election Commissioner has been conferred with powers to hold elections of the Gram Panchayat. They have no power to receive evidence, examine witness etc. Any person who has no judicial training may be appointed as State Election Commissioner. I am therefore of the considered opinion that in absence of there being a specific provision of Law providing for the manner in which matters relating to disqualifications may be considered by the State Election Commission, the State Election Commissioner cannot be taken as competent body to adjudicate the issues which are seriously contested between the parties and involves adjudication of disputed question of facts. It appears that under Rule 117 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules,2007 it is provided that the State Election Commission shall be the competent authority to decide any question of disqualification mentioned in sub-section(1) of Section 136 of the Act. On the other hand, Section 136(2) while conferring power upon the State Election Commission to decide the question of disqualification before election or after election has also extended the power of the State Election Commission to decide on the matter as to whether a member of the panchayat at any level is subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Section 135. As I have reached to a conclusion above that Section 135 nowhere prescribes the circumstances under which a person may be disqualified for being elected as a member of the panchayat or the municipality and in fact Section 135 talks of qualification 'unless disqualified' the said part of subsection(2) of Section 136 which reads 'subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Section 135........" is required to be given a harmonious construction which may be better fitted to the intention of the Act. As approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and object which the legislature has in view. In my view the said part of sub-section (2) of Section 136 has a tendency to create a mischief by allowing the State Election Commissioner to take up an issue of 'qualification' post election and declare a democratically elected member disqualified by taking away the 'qualification' of a return candidates. In my view the said part of sub-section (2) of Section 136 has a tendency to create a mischief by allowing the State Election Commissioner to take up an issue of 'qualification' post election and declare a democratically elected member disqualified by taking away the 'qualification' of a return candidates. It has to be thus suppressed by giving an interpretation which advances the remedy. In my view it should be read as 'subject to any disqualifications but not the qualification mentioned in Section 135.....' 172. I am of the opinion that the amendment brought in sub-section (2) of Section 136 in so far as it confers power upon the State Election Commissioner to look into the question of pre-election disqualification has to be construed as only those disqualification which were already present in the Returned candidate prior to election, but neither the complainant nor the State Election Commission had any knowledge of those existing pre-election disqualifications of the candidate. 173. The legislatures were aware that an election petition may be presented only within a period of thirty days from the date of declaration of result, thus in case the State Election Commissioner would have been clothed with the power only to decide the matters of post-election disqualification, a Returned candidate may by suppressing the fact as to his disqualification existing prior to the election which could not be noticed earlier and by allowing the limitation to expire, continue on his post for the full period. Perhaps to meet this situation the legislatures thought it just and proper to confer power upon the State Election Commissioner to decide the matters of disqualification pre-election or post-election. In such cases where the pre-election disqualification is noticed by the complainant and/or the State Election Commissioner after expiry of the period of limitation for filing of an election petition, the matter may be referred to the State Election Commission, but the complainant or the Commission would be obliged to record justification for entertaining the plea of the pre-election disqualification at a belated stage. In no case in the garb of deciding a disqualification issue can the State Election Commission take upon itself an adjudication with regard to an issue of qualification and the contentious issues of disqualification. In no case in the garb of deciding a disqualification issue can the State Election Commission take upon itself an adjudication with regard to an issue of qualification and the contentious issues of disqualification. I am thus of the opinion that even though Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 139 prescribes pre-election disqualification as a one of the grounds for presentation of an election petition, the same has to be read along with the power of the State Election Commission to consider an issue of pre-election disqualification. According to me the State Election Commission may consider the issue of pre-election qualification if it is noticed after expiry of the period of limitation for filing of an election petition, but again the State Election Commissioner cannot be an adjudicatory authority to decide the contested issue of pre-election disqualification which would require adducement of evidences by the parties. It is only in case of a positive and clinching evidence in hand that the State Election Commissioner may proceed to declare a candidate disqualified on the ground of pre-election or post election disqualification. To that extent there is no conflict in the two provisions. Post-election disqualification is not a ground provided under Section 139(1)(a) of the Act of 2006 and in Section 479(1)(a) of the Act of 2007, thus it is not an election dispute to be taken up before the Election Tribunal. 174. The upshot of the aforesaid discussions would lead to a conclusion that : (i) the State Election Commission by virtue of Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 shall not be entitled to entertain any complaint or petition subject matter of which is purely an election dispute such as corrupt practice, wrongful rejection of nomination etc. The Commission would not be competent to adjudicate any issue of 'qualification' under Section 135 of the Act of 2006 and corresponding section of the Act of 2007. (ii) In accordance with Article 243- O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act, such purely election dispute would be liable to be decided before the Election Tribunal in a duly constituted election petition. (ii) In accordance with Article 243- O of the Constitution of India read with Section 137 of the Act, such purely election dispute would be liable to be decided before the Election Tribunal in a duly constituted election petition. If an election petition in terms of Section 136 is presented within the limitation period, the question of qualification as well as the disqualification as on the date of election with respect to a returned candidate may be one of the grounds for declaring the election to be void. This will be in consonance with Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 139 of the Act of 2006 and similar will be the position under the Act of 2007. Post-election disqualification will not be a ground to challenge election. (iii) In case, the limitation for filing an election petition expired and thereafter the complaint is received or the State Election Commissioner suo motu gets an information that the returned candidate was not qualified in terms of Section 135, such question or matters shall not be open for consideration by the State Election Commission because the Commission cannot be the authority Post-election to examine the question of 'qualification'. Similar will be the position under Section 475 of the Act of 2007. (iv) If the issue raised with respect to disqualification of a returned candidate Pre or Post Election require adjudication as it may involve disputed question of facts which would require recording of evidences on behalf of the parties, the State Election Commission would only be justified in staying his hands granting liberty to the parties to get the issues adjudicated by a competent Civil Court or in case of any other forum available under any law in force from the said forum. Based on such adjudicatory orders, Election Commission may declare a member disqualified. 175. Based on such adjudicatory orders, Election Commission may declare a member disqualified. 175. Here I would make it clear that while conferring power upon the State Election Commission to take up the matters raising issue of disqualification pre-election or post-election, the legislatures were of the view that those are not a purely election dispute, therefore, if it is the view of the legislatures that issue of disqualification pre or post election may be decided by the State Election Commission, there will be no bar for the Civil Court to decide any of the issues arising in course of a proceeding of disqualification for members, but without giving any declaration with regard to the disqualification of a returned candidate to hold the post. The power to declare an elected candidate disqualified for holding the post would exclusively vest in the State Election Commission once the limitation for filing of an election petition expires. 176. In the aforementioned backgrounds, I proceed to answer the questions formulated by the Hon'ble Division Bench as follows in the chronological order:- (i) To me it appears that the State Election Commission having been vested with the power under sub-section(2) of Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 to decide the matters of Pre or Post-election disqualification of a candidate will be fully competent to consider such issues of disqualification if a complaint or information in any form is brought or suo-moto comes to the notice of the State Election Commission. The State legislatures are competent under Article 243F and Article 243V of the Constitution of India to provide for an authority who can examine the matters of disqualification and, therefore, if the State legislatures have chosen to confer power upon the State Election Commission which was originally constituted for conduct of elections, also to consider the matters of 'disqualification' it cannot be faulted with. Thus, the State Election Commission will have power to consider disqualification of a candidate but not the matters of qualification of a returned candidate. (ii) In my opinion, Section 476 and 479 both will have no otherwise effect and would not be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred with power to disqualify a candidate after election. (ii) In my opinion, Section 476 and 479 both will have no otherwise effect and would not be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred with power to disqualify a candidate after election. To me it appears that the preelection disqualification is one of the grounds available to challenge the election of a returned candidate. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 479 talks of those disqualifications which were existing on the date of the election of the returned candidate, thus an election petition may be presented on the ground that a candidate was not qualified in terms of Section 475 and was disqualified to be chosen as a member in terms of of subsection (2) of Section 18 of the Act of 2007, but once the limitation for filing of election petition expires, in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 18 if a question arises as to whether a returned candidate was disqualified on the date of election, the same may be decided by the State Election Commission subject to the adjudications on contentious issues as per observations recorded in this judgment. This will be in addition to power of the State Election Commission to decide the matters of Post-election disqualification. (iii) In my opinion the State Election Commission will have power to declare a returned candidate disqualified if the matter of disqualification Pre-election/as on the date of election is referred to him after the limitation for filing an election petition has come to an end and the materials placed before him are uncontested, clinching and needs no adjudication on the issue. The State Election Commission can neither entertain nor any matter relating to Pre-election disqualification may be referred to State Election Commission before expiry of the limitation period for filing of an election petition, further where an election petition has already been filed on the ground of Preelection disqualification and is pending adjudication before the Election Tribunal, a separate complaint on those very issues cannot be entertained by the State Election Commission. Since Post-election disqualification is not a ground of challenge before the Election Tribunal, a complaint raising a question of Post-election disqualifiction shall be directly raised before the Commission. Since Post-election disqualification is not a ground of challenge before the Election Tribunal, a complaint raising a question of Post-election disqualifiction shall be directly raised before the Commission. Answer to this question has to be read along with my observations with regard to the manner in which the State Election Commission will exercise its power while deciding the matters relating to disqualification when complicated questions of facts requiring an adjudication by adducement of evidences would fall for consideration before the Commission. 177. The references are answered accordingly. 178. Let the Letters Patent Appeals as well as the writ applications be sent to the respective Hon'ble Bench for consideration. EPILOGUE 179. Having discussed the legal position as appearing from a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 and the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007, I have also gone through the erudite judgments separately recorded by sister Hon'ble Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra and my companion brother Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad. The views expressed by them are entirely in consonance with my views expressed hereinabove. The upshot of the entire deliberations are being concluded hereinunder in all unanimity. 180. In paragraph 72' of her judgment, sister Justice Smt. Mishra has held that the State Election Commissioner shall not entertain any dispute which is already the subject-matter of an election petition and is a dispute pending before any Election Tribunal and I agree with her views that the complainant cannot avail two parallel statutory remedies at the same time. 181. It is further held that the State Election Commissioner must not entertain pure election disputes and whether a dispute brought before the Election Tribunal is a purely election dispute or not, must be decided as a preliminary issue. The State Election Commissioner has power to suo-motu take notice of any disqualification of a returned candidate either before or after the election. Disputed questions of facts relating to disqualification cannot be entertained by the State Election Commission and only those cases where there are unimpeachable materials before the State Election Commission should be entertained by the Commission. In other cases where issues can be determined only by a competent court of law after leading evidence, the Commission would be required to await the decision of a competent court/tribunal constituted as a fact finding body which is duly authorized by law to render a decision on the issue. 182. In other cases where issues can be determined only by a competent court of law after leading evidence, the Commission would be required to await the decision of a competent court/tribunal constituted as a fact finding body which is duly authorized by law to render a decision on the issue. 182. Brother Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad has dealt with the issue of 'qualification' and 'disqualification'. In his ultimate analysis brother Justice Prasad has, in paragraph 34 to 51 of the Judgment referred to various decisions on the subject and has reached to a conclusion that Section 135 of the Act of 2006 nowhere prescribes the circumstances under which a person may be disqualified for being elected as a member of the Panchayat or the Municipality and in fact Section 135 talks of qualification 'unless disqualified', therefore the said part of sub-section (2) of Section 136 which reads "subject to any disqualifications mentioned in Section 135" is required to be given a harmonious construction which may be better fitted to the intention of the Act. In order to give an interpretation which advances the remedy, brother Justice Prasad has expressed his views by reading down that part of subsection(2) of Section 136 of the Act of 2006 to the extent that it should be read as 'subject to any disqualifications but not the qualification mentioned in Section 135'. There is no disagreement on this issue in the judgment of sister Justice Smt. Anajana Mishra and myself. The State Election Commission cannot take upon itself adjudication with regard to an issue of 'qualification' and the contentious issues of disqualifications as observed above. The gist of the entire discussion in the judgment of brother Sri Justice Prasad are recorded in paragraph 54 of his judgment and I do not find any difference of opinion either in my judgment or in the judgment of sister Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra. 183. I, therefore, find that the cumulative impact of the entire discussion in the separate judgments would take us to answer the reference in the following terms:- Question No.1- Whether the State Election Commission will have power to consider disqualification of a candidate after election as such Election Commission is constituted for conduct of elections? 184. 183. I, therefore, find that the cumulative impact of the entire discussion in the separate judgments would take us to answer the reference in the following terms:- Question No.1- Whether the State Election Commission will have power to consider disqualification of a candidate after election as such Election Commission is constituted for conduct of elections? 184. We are in agreement that the State Election Commission has got power under sub-section(2) of Section 18 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and sub-section(2) of Section 136 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 to consider an issue of pre or post election disqualification of a candidate subject to a caution which we have pointed out in our judgments in respect of a case which is in the nature of a purely election dispute and then a matter which cannot be decided without adducement of evidence by a competent court and authority in accordance with law. The State Election Commission shall entertain and consider the 'disqualification' issues on the basis of the unimpeachable materials placed before him. Whether a complaint brought before the Commission either suo-moto or by any other person, the Commission shall at the first instance enquire whether it is a purely election dispute and only when it is found that the dispute brought before it is not a purely election dispute, the Commission shall proceed to consider the same on the basis of unimpeachable materials. Whenever a disputed question of facts and a contentious issue is brought before the Commission as a ground and basis to render a candidate disqualified, the Commission would be required to relegate the parties to a competent court/tribunal or a fact finding body competent to decide such contentious issues after taking evidences and till such time the Commission shall not take a decision on such complaint either suo-moto or otherwise. Question No.II- Whether the provisions of Section 476 read with Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 can be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred power to disqualify a candidate after election, as the disqualification of a candidate is a ground on which election petition can be filed? 185. Question No.II- Whether the provisions of Section 476 read with Section 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 can be rendered redundant or otiose, if the State Election Commission is conferred power to disqualify a candidate after election, as the disqualification of a candidate is a ground on which election petition can be filed? 185. We have come to a conclusion that the provisions of Section 476 and 479 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 would not be rendered redundant or otiose if the State Election Commission declares a returned candidate disqualified on the basis of pre or post election disqualification. Save and except pure election disputes, the Commission has been empowered by the Statute to decide a reference on the issue of 'disqualification' of a returned candidate. We, however, hold that a person pursuing an election petition on the ground of a 'disqualification' that was existing on the date of election of the returned candidate, cannot simultaneously pursue a complaint before the State Election Commission as two parallel statutory remedies cannot be applied and proceeded with at the same time. Question No.III- Whether the State Election Commission will have power to declare a candidate disqualified when the limitation for filing the election petition has come to an end, meaning thereby instead of adopting an alternative statutory remedy, the State Election Commission can nullify the election? 186. We have held that the State Election Commission does have the power to declare a candidate disqualified on the ground of pre or post disqualification but a pure election dispute which may be raised only by filing an election petition cannot be a matter of reference before the State Election Commission. Since the post-election 'disqualification' is not a ground to challenge the election before the election tribunal and a pre-election disqualification may come to the notice of the State Election Commission either suo-moto or through a complaint after expiry of the period of limitation for filing the election petition, we hold that the State Election Commission shall be competent to declare a candidate 'disqualified' by entertaining a complaint or suo-moto acting on the basis of an information even after limitation for filing of an election petition has come to an end. 187. The reference before this Full Bench will be taken to have been answered in the aforesaid terms. Let the records be sent back to the respective benches for adjudication. 187. The reference before this Full Bench will be taken to have been answered in the aforesaid terms. Let the records be sent back to the respective benches for adjudication. Anjana Mishra, J. : I Agree Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. : I Agree