Rajesh vs State of Haryana and Others

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—The compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Petitioner and the private Respondents contested the elections of the Panchayat Samiti, Safidon, for Ward No. 23 held on 06.06.2010. Respondent No. 5 was declared elected vide result-sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4) in this regard.

Aggrieved by the election results, the Petitioner filed the instant writ petition for quashing the result-sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4) issued by Respondent No. 4, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

The Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioner and raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of the election petition, as contemplated u/s 176 of The Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994(hereinafter to be referred as "the Act").

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in this context.

As is evident from the record that in the wake of elections, Respondent No. 5 secured 684 votes and was elected as a Member of Panchayat Samiti, Safidon, by virtue of result-sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4). The Petitioner did not feel satisfied with the declaration of the result in question, assailed and challenged the result-sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4). That means, the Petitioner has challenged the validity of indicated elections of Respondent No. 5, as Member of Panchayat Samiti.

Section 176 of the Act postulates that if the validity of any election of a member of a Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad or Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Chairman or Vice-Chairman, President or Vice-President of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad respectively is brought in question by any person contesting the election or by any person qualified to vote at the election to which such question relates, such person may at any time within thirty days after the date of the declaration of results of the election, present an election petition to the civil court having ordinary jurisdiction in the area within which the election has been or should have been held, for the determination of such question.

Meaning thereby, as statutory remedy to challenge the elections by way of election petition u/s 176 of the Act is very much available to the Petitioner, therefore, the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, involving the factual matrix, is not directly maintainable in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, as the writ petition is not maintainable, at this stage, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that, the Petitioner would be at liberty to avail his statutory remedy for redressal of his grievance, in accordance with law.