JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside result dated 12.11.2022 of the election to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rahaka, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram whereby respondent No. 4 has been declared to be elected candidate. There is a further prayer for a direction to respondent No. 2 to correct anomalies occurring in the voters list and to conduct re-election to the abovesaid post of Sarpanch.

2. It is submitted that petitioners are the contesting candidates, who lost election to respondent No. 4. Challenge has been raised to election of respondent No. 4 to the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Rahaka, Tehsil Sohna, District Gurugram on the ground that bogus votes were cast in this election. It is contended that difference of votes polled in favour of respondent No. 4 and petitioner No. 1 is of seven votes only whereas petitioners have given a list of nine votes, which have been erroneously cast and that too in favour of respondent No. 4. It is contended that allegations as are being raised are not covered under the provision of Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act , 1994 (for short - 1994 Act'), therefore, present writ petition is maintainable. It is submitted that bogus votes have been cast blatantly, therefore, election was far from free or fair, thus, the same should be set aside and re-election conducted for the post in question.

3. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file with his able assistance. However, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in this matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. In a similar situation wherein election to the post of Sarpanch was challenged on the basis of casting of bogus votes, this Court in CWP- 26255-2022 has dismissed the same. Similar arguments as have been raised before us, were raised in the said writ petition as well. There is a clear cut bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters as provided in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Section 170 of 1994 Act also provides a bar for interference in election matters. In a long line of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme has consistently held that though jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ousted in matters related to elections, it is a rule of prudence whereby the High Court while exercising self-restraint would not interfere in the matter, especially if the petition presented before it 'calls in question an Election'. Anything done towards completion or furtherance of the election proceedings, it has been held, cannot be described as questioning the election and these are the situations wherein interference of the High Court may be called for. In the present case, petitioner is clearly calling in question the election at hand. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2000 AIR (Supreme Court) 2979 while referring to its earlier judgments in the case of N.M. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others , AIR 1952 SC 64 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi , 1978 (1) SCC 405 held as under:-

"28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally