P. D. MULYE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of elections under the M. P. Panchayats Act with a prayer to quash the results which were declared on 11-4-84 (Annex. F and Annexure G), on the ground that in fact elections on 8-4-1984 of the Sarpanch as also that of the Upsarpanch had not taken place at all. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the residents of Gram Panchayat of village Maltar. Respondent 2 Ramsingh and respondent 3 Sitaram were elected Sarpanch and Upsarpanch of Gram Panchayat, but as a no confidence motion was moved they were removed from their post, the no confidence motion having been passed against them on 27-1-84. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER respondent 5 was appointed as the notified authority for holding elections under R. 80 of the Gram Panchayat Sarpanch and Upsarpanch Election Rules 1982. The respondent 5 by a notice d/-1-4-84 directed that under S. 15 of the Act elections of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch would be held on 8-4-1984 at 11 a. m. in Panchayat Bhawan of Maltar as per annexure A. ( 4 ) THE petitioner No. 1 Soma and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 submitted their forms for elections to the post of Sarpanch, while petitioner No. 2. Rulsiram and respondents 3 and 4 filed their forms for the post of Upsarpanch. That the form of respondent 2 Ramsingh was rejected under S. 38 as no confidence motion was passed against him on 27-1-84. Similarly respondent 4, Mangilal did not take part in the election. ( 5 ) ACCORDING to the petitioners at the time of the elections on 8-4-84, objection was raised by the petitioners that the form of respondent 3 for the post of Upsarpanch has also to be rejected under S. 38 as he was also removed from the post of Upsarpanch along with respondent 2 Ramsingh. Similarly some more objections were raised, but a hubbub was created and due to the noise and rioting, did not permit the Election Officer to conduct the elections properly. However, under the orders of the Election Officer votes were submitted but the same were neither properly polled nor were properly sealed. Similarly some more objections were raised, but a hubbub was created and due to the noise and rioting, did not permit the Election Officer to conduct the elections properly. However, under the orders of the Election Officer votes were submitted but the same were neither properly polled nor were properly sealed. Further according to the petitioners the elections could not be properly held nor under the Rules the ballots were properly polled nor the votes were counted nor the results were declared, nor the same could be done properly. The election officer wrote the proceedings on 8-4-84 that he explained as to how to poll votes and at the time the Panch Mangilal respondent 4 misbehaved with the election officer and also wrote in the proceedings that the election officer wanted to reject the form of respondent 3, but because of the shouting etc. , the form was accepted. It was also written in the proceedings that because of the apprehension of breach of peace he could not conduct the elections and the same were stayed as per Annexure B. Further according to the petitioner, the same day, Gram Sahayak of Panchayat also wrote the proceedings to that effect. ( 6 ) THE petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition on the ground that because of the unruly situation created on 8-4-84 in fact the elections had not taken place at all. Therefore, question of staying the declaration of results of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch did not arise at all. He has, therefore, prayed that in these circumstances the respondent 5 be directed to hold their elections. ( 7 ) THE respondents have contested the said petition mainly on the ground that elections had in fact taken place but only result thereof could not be declared. The respondent 5 on the date of hearing of this petition has filed an affidavit dt. 28-11-84 along with certain annexures stating therein that in fact elections of the Sarpanch as also the Upsarpanch had taken place on 8-4-84, but that only the results could not be declared on account of the unruly situation created on the spot. ( 8 ) THE respondents have not disputed this fact that the results of the elections were declared not on 8-4-84 but on 11-4-84. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have already filed an election petition before the competent authority, which is already pending. ( 8 ) THE respondents have not disputed this fact that the results of the elections were declared not on 8-4-84 but on 11-4-84. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have already filed an election petition before the competent authority, which is already pending. Thus, it would appear that whether elections of Sarpanch and Upsarpanch had in fact taken place or not on 8-4-84 is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be considered in a writ petition. As the petitioner have already filed an election petition before the competent authority they are at liberty to agitate all those points regarding the disputed questions of facts as to whether in fact any election of the Sarpanch or Upsarpanch had taken place on 8-4-84 or not in accordance with law. Therefore, we refrain from expressing any opinion regarding all these disputed questions of facts, at it is for the Election Tribunal to go into the same and decide the election petition in accordance with the provisions of law and the Rules framed thereunder. This court in a writ petition cannot decide these questions as a court of appeal, which position was also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. ( 9 ) THUS, as the controversy involved in the present case purely depends on questions of facts, which are in dispute regarding the very fact as to whether elections of the Sarpanch and Upsarpanch had taken place or not, when it is positively asserted by the respondents that elections had taken place on 8-4-84, we are of opinion that the petitioners, in these circumstances, is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition, which is dismissed on this short ground alone with no order as to costs. The Election Tribunal shall consider all the objections raised by the petitioners in their election petition and shall decide the same in accordance with law as we have not touched nor expressed any opinion regarding the merits of the case in this petition. The amount of security deposit, on verification, be returned to the petitioners. Petition dismissed. .