RAJESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE compendium of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for a limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that the Petitioner and the private Respondents contested the elections of the Panchayat Samiti, Safidon, for Ward No. 23 held on 06.06.2010. Respondent No. 5 was declared elected vide result -sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4) in this regard.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the election results, the Petitioner filed the instant writ petition for quashing the result -sheets(Annexures P/3 and P/4) issued by Respondent No. 4, invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant writ petition is not maintainable in this context.