1. - An application has been filed under Section 226(3) of the Constitution of India by the respondent No. 5, the Chief Election Officer & Secretary.

2. Mr. R.B. Mathur, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, has contended that according to Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented before the appropriate authority. Similarly, according to Section 117 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act', for short), no election to Panchayati Raj Institution shall be called in question except by an election petition presented before the appropriate authority. Moreover, under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 ('the Election Rules', for short), if a person is aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground that they were rejected improperly, the only remedy, that he has, is to present an election petition. These particular provisions of law try to prevent the needless meddling of the Court in the election process, as the election process is an arduous process and faces grave logistical problems. In order to ensure the smooth running of the election process, these particular provisions of the Constitution of India, the Panchayati Raj Act and the Election Rules have been created. Lastly, according to the learned counsel, the present case dealt with the alleged rejection of the nomination paper. Thus, the case is squarely covered by Rule 80(c) of the Election Rules. Hence, the petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an election petition. Thus, the writ jurisdiction can not be invoked by him. The learned counsel has contended that the passing of the said order dated 20th January, 2010, is, thus, clearly in violation of the bar contained in Constitution of India, Panchayati Raj Act and the Election Rules thereunder. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan & Ors., [AIR 1988 SC 616] and on the case of Sundar Lal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2424/2009, decided on 30th April, 2009].

3. Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the bar contained under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India does not relate to the writ jurisdiction of this Court, which has been bestowed on this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Secondly, Rule 80 of the Election Rules comes into an operation only after the election results have been declared. Thus, the bar contained in Rule 80 of the Election Rules does not come into operation while the election process is continuing. Similarly, Section 117 of the Act does not and cannot bar the power of judicial review contained in Article 226 of the constitution of India. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Ratiram v. Devi Charan and Anr., [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7835/2006, decided on 18.01.2010].

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case law cited at the bar.

5. The election, the heart of democracy, is a long drawn out process that commences with the declaration of election by the Government and ends with the declaration of the results by the Election Commissioner. In a country like India, which is the largest democracy in the world, the Election Commissioner has to undertake many steps before the election comes to a grinding hault with the declaration of the results. In order to prevent endless obstacle being created in the process, the Parliament, in its wisdom, had enacted Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. It is essential to note that Article 243-O is contained in part IX of the Constitution, a part which places the entire Panchayati Raj on a high Constitutional pedestal. Since the intention of the legislature was to ensure a smooth democratic election at the grass root level, i.e. at th