The main legal point established is that a petitioner who did not contest an election lacks standing to challenge the election result, and frivolous litigation should be discouraged through the imposition of substantial costs.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 3.8.2016 (Annexure P-7), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal-respondent No. 3, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the impugned order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This is the second round of litigation. At an earlier point of time, petitioner approached this court by way of CWP No. 9195 of 2016, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.5.2016 ( Annexure P-6), with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, to take a decision on the representation dated 11.1.2016, moved by the petitioner, within a period of three months. In compliance of the abovesaid order passed by this Court, For Subsequent orders see LPA-2066-2016 Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, passed the impugned order dated 3.8.2016 (Annexure P-7), which is wrongly typed as dated 3.8.2014 at page 50 of the paper book.

4. Thrust of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of averments taken in the writ petition, is that respondent No. 4 was not eligible to contest the election of Sarpanch, because of her age. Allegations have also been levelled against the election staff, including the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Returning Officer, that they failed to ensure fair conduct of election of the Gram Panchayat in the village of the petitioner, which was held on 10.1.2016.

5. A bare reading of the averments taken in the writ petition as well as arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner would make it crystal clear that it is the election of respondent No. 4 which, as a matter of fact, is being challenged by the petitioner by way of present writ petition. It is not in dispute that when respondent No. 4 filed her nomination paper, no such objection was raised, pointing out any ineligibility, including the one which is being alleged by way of present writ petition. It is also a matter of record that despite knowing fully well about his case, neither petitioner nor any other aggrieved party, challenged the election of respondent No. 4, as per procedure provided under the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (‘the Act of 1994’ for short).

6. In fact, petitioner did not contest the election against respondent No. 4 but his close relative contested the election of Sarpanch against respondent No. 4. From this fact, it also becomes clear that petitioner was trying to settle his personal score with respondent No. 4, at the instance of his close relative. Petitioner made his best possible efforts to ensure that respondent No. 4 may not work as Sarpanch, because he also sought a restraint order against respondent No. 4, by moving a petition before the State Election Commission, Haryana, vide Annexure P-5.

7. In compliance of the abovesaid order dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-6) passed by this Court, Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, got an enquiry conducted on the complaint made by the petitioner, by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. Earlier to that, another enquiry was conducted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Palwal, on the complaint made by the petitioner. All these facts were duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner before passing the impugned order 3.8.2016 (Annexure P-7), which has not been found suffering from any patent illegality and the same deserves to be upheld.

8. The relevant observations made by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 3.8.2016 (Annexure P-7), which deserve to be noticed here, read as under:-

“…….Before the above order of Hon’ble High Court a complaint of Mohammed Iliyash son of Shri Jamaluddin resident of village Softa was received through State Election Commissioner Haryana, Panchkula regarding date of birth certificate of Rukshar wife of Mohammed Rajak resident of village Softa. This complaint was got enquired by Sub Divisional Officer (civil), Palwal. In his enqu