CW 4080/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4080/2010 Smt. Gayatri Devi & Anr Versus State & Ors. Date of Order : 29/03/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Vikrant Gupta, for petitioner It is a joint petition filed by petitioners basically assailing election of respondent-5 (Smt. Barji Devi Saini) who has been declared as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Samod (Tehsil Chomu Dist.Jaipur) vide order dt.31/01/2010 while defeating petitioner-1 whereas petitioner-2 is alleged to be a voter of Gram Panchayat Samod. Joint petition has been filed with the grievance that respondent-5 who claimed to be wife of Bhagwan Sahai, in fact was impersonating herself as Smt. Barji Devi while she is Smt. Sushila Devi, who as alleged in para 4, earlier had married to Shri Kalyan - after whose death, had married to Bhagwan Sahai upon his wife Smt. Barji devi having died in 1991; and in support whereof, document has been placed to show that there is a clear case of impersonation on the part of respondent-5 while filling up nomination form. A list of family was also enclosed with nomination form disclosing in Col.3 children from the wedlock of respondent-5; as such she CW 4080/10 //2// has made material concealment, and proper action deserves to be taken against her. Counsel submits that as regards disqualification, petitioner-1 even if having contested election is not competent to protest the election as provided under election law. Submission made by Counsel is bereft of merit for the reason that as regards pre- disqualification, remedy is available to protest against the respondent-5 on being elected as Sarpanch, if so advised by way of filing election petition as provided under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act for which detailed procedure has been laid under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. Submission made of respondent-5 having impersonated herself, who in fact is Sushila Devi while having shown as Smt. Barjidevi, in the opinion of this Court is a disputed question of fact, that cannot be examined by this Court in a limited scope of judicial review U/Art.226 of the Constitution. This Court finds no justification to entertain this petition. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to avail of remedy under the law. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/4080CW2010Mar29Ds.doc