THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.15343 of 2007 ORDER: Elections to the oﬃce of Sarpanch of Kamalapuram Gram Panchayat of Dummagudem Mandal, Khammam District, were held on 13-07-2007. The petitioner and 5th respondent contested for the same. It is alleged that, in the initial counting of the votes, the petitioner secured majority; and instead of declaring the results, the 4th respondent had undertaken recounting. It is alleged that, in the recounting, out of the total number of votes polled, viz., 998, one was found missing, and that the 5th respondent and the petitioner were declared to have secured 445 and 444, votes, respectively. Petitioner contends that, one vote, said to have been missing; was polled in his favour, and instead of resolving the dispute, by drawing lots, the 4th respondent has declared the 5th respondent, as elected. He further contends that the action taken by the 4th respondent is in clear violation of Section 225-D of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). He seeks a declaration, that failure on the part of the respondents 1 to 4, in correctly counting the votes polled, for the oﬃce of the Gram Panchayat, is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Consequential direction is sought, to the 1st respondent, to conduct fresh elections to the office of Sarpanch. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The grievance, pointed out by the petitioner, is, as regards the procedure, adopted by the 4th respondent, in counting of the votes and declaration of results. In whatever form the grievance may have been pointed out, the fact remains that, it would impinge upon the results of the election. Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, and Section 233 of the Act, prohibit challenge of election to any Gram Panchayat, otherwise than, by way of an Election Petition, presented to the Authority, prescribed under the relevant provisions of law. A Tribunal is constituted under the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, to adjudicate election disputes. It is strongly contended that the purport of the writ petition is, not a challenge to the election, but a complaint, as regards non-compliance with the speciﬁc provisions of the Act. It needs to be observed that, every stage of election, commencing with the preparation and publication of electoral rolls, to the declaration of results; is governed by one provision of law, or the other. Every ground, on which, an election can be set aside; is also provided for, under the relevant Sections or Rules. It is diﬃcult to separate the instances of infraction of law, in the context of a challenge is being made to an election. Even if the contention of the petitioner, as regards the violation of Section 225-D of the Act is accepted, it would naturally lead to annulment of the results of election. What is prohibited to be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done, indirectly. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt:29-10-2008. KO