The central legal point established in the judgment is that only a candidate, not a voter, can file an election petition under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, to challenge the election result.

1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are voters of Panchayat Circle Hurla, Tehsil, Mahuwa, District-Dausa, for cancelling the declaration of the result of the election and the certificate, issued by the Returning Officer, to Shiv Prasad Meena, respondent No. 6, on 4.2.2000, and restraining him from taking oath of the office of the aforesaid Panchayat Circle. It is further prayed that the respondents may be directed to order re-poll of the election of the office of the Sarpanch, Panchaayt Circle Hurla, Tehsil, Mahuwa, District-Dausa.

2. The present writ petition has been filed on the ground that ballot papers were rejected contrary to Rule-50 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called, "the Rules of 1994") and further the ballots counted were found less than the ballots cast by 23 votes, for which, immediate objection was raised before the declaration of the result, but no action was taken as per Rule-50, read with Rule-49 (ka) of the Rules of 1994 and no re-polling was made according to the said provisions of law, by respondent No.2, despite the representation dated 4.2.2000, filed by hand, before him. It is averred that the act/omission and commission of respondent No.2 has resulted in violation of constitutional rights of voters, in a democratic set-up, which is to be held in violation of the legal provisions, stated here in above. When the aforesaid matter came up for consideration before this Court, on 21.2.2000, the following order was passed.

"It is settled principle of law that an office bearer under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, holds statutory office subject to the statutory provisions contained therein. Once a person is elected for an office of Panchayat under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and a certificate is issued, he can be non-seated only by filing of an-election petition under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. Under Section 43 of the aforesaid Act, only a candidate can question the declaration of result by Returning Officer by filing an election petition under the aforesaid Act. There is no provision where election of an elected office bearer of Rajasthan Panchayat can be challenged by a voter.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Asopa, prayed for and granted 10 days' time to get prepared as to whether under Section 43 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, a voter can also be permitted to challenge election of validly elected office bearer under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, to whom a certificate has been issued by the Returning Officer."

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.S. Asopa, at length, and perused the material provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called, "the Act of 1994") and the election rules framed thereunder.

4. In the instant writ petition, the Court is called upon to decide the following questions :

1 Whether this Court can go behind the wisdom of the State Legislature, providing an election petition by any candidate under Section 43 of Act of 1994 after declaration of result on the grounds enumerated under Rule 80 of the Election Rules 1994 within thirty days framed under the said Act by substituting any votet in place of any candidate in garb of interpretation ?

2 Whether the result declared in favour of respondent No.6, Shiv Prasad Meena, duly declared elected Sarpanch of Panchayat Circle Hurla aforesaid can be challenged before this Court, by filing a writ petition by the present three voters or it can be challenged only by any candidate as envisaged under Section 43 of Act of 1994 ?

5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that an election petition under Section 43 of the Act of 1994, can be filed only by a candidate, by presenting it in the prescribed manner, to the District Judge having jurisdiction of hearing a petition in this behalf, on the prescribed grounds and within the prescribed period under Rule 80