@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Amarjeet Chaudhary and S.C. Malte, JJ.@mdashThis order will dispose of Civil Miscellaneous No. 12626 of 1994 and R.A. No. 346 of 1994
filed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14966 of 1994.
2. Notice of the applications was issued to the writ petitioner''s counsel, in response to which he has put in appearance.
3. In these applications, the applicants have prayed for recalling of this Court''s order dated 6th December, 1994, vide which the Court allowed
the writ petition and quashed the order dated 29th September, 1994, copy of which is Annexure P-l to the writ petition pertaining to formation of
Block II, Charkhi Dadri. A direction was also issued that fresh Wardbandi/Blocks be constituted in accordance with rules. It was further directed
that in case objection/appeal is preferred by any aggrieved party, that is to be disposed of by a well reasoned order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has contended that in pursuance of this Court''s order, the respondent-State has stayed the election which
has adversely affected the applicants, who were contesting the election from the aforesaid wards. Learned counsel for the applicants contended
that schedule of election was notified and notification to this effect was issued. Had this fact been brought to the notice of this Court, the Court
would not have interfered in the matter, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Others, . It has also been urged that once the notification is issued, the delimitation of the wardbandi cannot be questioned. Shri
Sarin further contended that in view of the amended provisions of the Constitution, election cannot be called in question except by an election
petition.
5. After considering the submissions of the counsel for the parties and in view of the amended provisions of law, we are of the view that once the
election process commences and notification in this regard is issued, the Court is not to interfere in the matter as the aggrieved party has the
remedy of election petition. In view of Article 243Q of the Constitution, no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.
6. In the case in hand, election process had already commenced and the word ''election'' has to be interpreted to include the entire process of the
election which commences from inviting nomination papers and ends with the declaration of the election. This view is based on the observations
made in N.P. Ponnuswami''s Case (supra). The Court would not have interfered in this matter in writ jurisdiction, had the respondent-State
brought to our notice that the election process had already commenced.
7. In view of the above observations, the order dated 6th December, 1994 is recalled. Writ petition is dismissed. However, in case the petitioner is
left with any grievance in the matter, it will be open to him to challenge the election, in accordance with law.
8. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Reader of this Court, Shri H.C. Chhabra.
