JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for (i) directing respondents no.1 and 2 to enquire into correctness of the nomination form alongwith supporting documents enclosed therewith by respondent no.5, who has been elected to the post of Sarpanch on 02.11.2022.

(ii) Writ in the nature of qo-warranto directing respondents no.1 and 2 to cancel the alleged bogus candidature of respondent no.5 and remove her from the post of Sarpanch as she has been elected in an illegal manner;

(iii) directing respondents no.1 and 2 to enquire into the fake votes polled in the election held on 02.11.2022 to the post of Sarpanch of village Baroji, Tehsil and District Mewat (Nuh);

(iv) Directing respondents no.1 and 2 to cancel bogus votes which were cast on 02.11.2022 as the entire polling process was vitiated due to the same and to take strict legal action against the officials party to the said act.

2. It is stated in the writ petition that sister-in-law of the petitioner had contested for the post of Sarpanch of village Baroji, Tehsil and District Mewat (Nuh). It is alleged that grave illegalities were committed in this election with wide spread bungling in casting of votes and bogus votes being cast in favour of respondent no.5. Furthermore, incorrect information was supplied by respondent no.5 at the time of submission of her nomination papers. It is also alleged that vote of respondent no.5 has been prepared fraudulently on the basis of bogus documents. It was submitted that complaint/representation dated 22.11.2022 was submitted by the petitioner in regard to bungling in the casting of votes leading to election of respondent no.5 in an illegal manner but no action was taken thereon.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that it is the obligation of the State to take action in such matters immediately to ensure free and fair election. Even if disputed questions of fact are invoked, this Court should entertain the writ petition and seek a report of the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. Petitioner in this writ petition also seeks action against the official respondents, therefore, it was prayed that this writ petition should be entertained.

4. Though, notice of motion was not formally issued in this writ petition, learned counsel for the State has rendered assistance as advance copy of the writ petition stood supplied. Counsel for respondent no.5 had also appeared.

5. We heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and went through the file with their assistance, however, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reasons as described hereinafter.

6. It is pertinent to note that there is a clear-cut bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters as provided in Article 243(O) of the Constitution of India. Article 329 of the Constitution of India also creates a bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. Consequent to incorporation of part IX in the Constitution of India (73rd Amendment of Act, 1992), which came into force w.e.f. 24.04.1993, the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act , 1994 (for short the 1994 Act) was promulgated and enforced w.e.f. 22.04.1994. Chapter 20 of the 1994 Act deals with provisions relating to elections.

7. Section 170 of the 1994 Act creates a bar for interference in election matters, which reads as under:-

170. No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction-

(a) to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person