CWP No.16874 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16874 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.09.2010 Kaushalya ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the election of Sarpanch of village Daroli Ahir, Tehsil Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, in the election held on 12.6.2010. The petitioner though is challenging the election of respondent No.5, but has drafted the petition with a prayer to direct the official respondent to hold inquiry into the conduct of the election, on the ground, that the election was surrounded by irregularities, if an inquiry is got conducted, it would reveal that respondent No.5 was wrongly declared as elected, even though it was the petitioner, who was winner. Learned counsel for the petitioner before approaching this Court also made representation to the Deputy Commissioner, to hold an inquiry into the conduct of the election. Prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the Deputy Commissioner be directed to decide the representation by CWP No.16874 of 2010 -2- passing a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. The prayer made in the writ petition is totally mis-conceived. The petitioner had a statutory remedy of filing election petition, and that it was only the Election Tribunal which could go into the allegations made by the petitioner in this writ petition. No ground is made out to interfere with the election of respondent No.5, as alternative statutory remedy of election petition was available to the petitioner, nor any inquiry is warranted. The Deputy Commissioner is also not competent to hold an inquiry into the conduct of election, after the election is concluded, and the election of winning candidate notified. It was only the Election Tribunal, which could have entertained and decided the grievances raised in this petition. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge September 20, 2010 R.S.