JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. - This writ petition has been filed by Deoraj Puri which contained the following prayers : (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 8-11-1990 (Annexure-V). (b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hold a fresh election of the Gaon Sabha Garakul Palock Shorathgarh, District Siddharthnagar. (c) Issue any other order, writ of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Annexure-V may be rightly quoted here in order to understand the entire questions raised through this writ petition. (Translated into English by Court). Shorathgarh 8-11-1990 Shri Athahullah. Gram Panchayat Adhikari (Garakul) Shorathgarh (Siddharthnagar) Message : You are hereby directed to see that the charge of Office of Pradhan be taken from Deoraj Puri, Up-Pradhan and be handed over to the newly elected Pradhan Shri Molhu and the copy of the charge-list be sent to the office forthwith. (Atma Prasad Tripathi) Khand Vikas Adhikari Letter No. 904 (IV)/dated as above. Shorathgarh (Siddharthnagar). 2. It is apparent, therefore, that the petitioner, Deoraj Puri was the Up-Pradhan when election for the Gaon Sabha Garakul was held. He was perhaps working as the Pradhan. The Annexures indicate that Shri Molhu was the newly elected Pradhan. 3. The controversy sought to be raised by this writ petition is that the Scheduled date for the election v.as 16-10-1990 when some radio-grams was sent around 7.20 a.m. and some news-items were also published in the news papers indicating that the elections to the Offices of Pradhans of various Gaon Sabha were postponed. Photo-state copies of some news .papers reports have been filed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. The petitioner was himself a candidate for the Office of Pradhan of that Gaon Sabha for which there were near about 14 candidates. The list of the candidates has been filed as Annexure-2 to this writ petition. It has been said that two of the 14 candidates viz. Ali Ahmed and Salim were not present at the polling booth and that 50 per cent voters precluded from participating in the election said to have been held on 16-10-1990 on account of the news of suspension of the election (see Para 11 of the writ petition) 4. It has been said that two of the 14 candidates viz. Ali Ahmed and Salim were not present at the polling booth and that 50 per cent voters precluded from participating in the election said to have been held on 16-10-1990 on account of the news of suspension of the election (see Para 11 of the writ petition) 4. It has been said in the para 12 of the writ petition that a further news item published in the local Dainik Jagran dated 22-10-1990 indicates that the fact of suspension of the election stood corroborated by the said news item. 5. It may be relevant to quote here Paragraph 13 of the writ petition as it states : "That the petitioner as well as many other candidates present at the polling booth gave a representation to the Presiding Officer to the effect that in such a confused and Chaotic situation no fair and free election could be held and the election may be postponed till further orders of the appropriate authorities, but the Presiding Officer did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner as well as of the other candidates and refused to accept the representation of the petitioner. A true copy of the representation is filed as Annexure-IV to the writ petition." 6. When this writ petition was filed n this Court on 26-11-1990 a counter-affidavit was called from the Standing Counsel. However on 14-12-1990 an interim order was passed by which the operation of the order dated 8-11-1990 (Annexure-V) was stayed till further orders. 7. When this writ petition was listed on the last occasion learned counsel appearing for Molhu made a mention that the newly elected Pradhan was being kept out of Office in pursuance of the interim order dated 14-12-1990 and that no election Petition challenging the election has been filed. A counter affidavit by Mulhu was filed in this court, a true copy of which was served on the learned counsel for the petitioner as early as on 9th August, 1991. An impleadmnent application was also filed. The said counter-affidavit alongwith the impleadment application is not on the record and learned counsel for the petitioner has however, not denied that the said application alongwith a copy of the counter-affidavit was served upon him. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 8. An impleadmnent application was also filed. The said counter-affidavit alongwith the impleadment application is not on the record and learned counsel for the petitioner has however, not denied that the said application alongwith a copy of the counter-affidavit was served upon him. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 8. In view of the orders passed on 22-10-1992, at the instance of the learned counsel for the newly elected Pradhan Molhu this case was taken up today. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he would like some further time for preparing the matter in as much as that he had sent an illness slip on the last occasion after the case had begun on the date prior to the last occasion, this case may be adjourned for some time. This request having been opposed, the court was left with no alternative but to proceed with the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner was present in the court and has answered few questions but ultimately said that he is not in a position to participate in the further hearing of this matter. The legal position is very clear on election matters. The elected candidate has to be given charge of the Office and his election can be questioned only by the process of law. In this connection Section 12 (c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is a complete Code on the point, it has provided that the election of a person as a Pradhan of Gaon Sabha or as a member of a Panchayat shall not be a called in question except by an application presented to such an authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on grounds indicated Clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. In this regard the relevant Rules are Rules 24, 25 and 26. 9. Shri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in this matter Annexure-5 cannot and could not be interpreted to have declared that Shri Mohlu is the real and lawfully elected Pradhan in as much as there was no valid declaration of result therein and consequently there was no question of filing any election petition. 10. 9. Shri M.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in this matter Annexure-5 cannot and could not be interpreted to have declared that Shri Mohlu is the real and lawfully elected Pradhan in as much as there was no valid declaration of result therein and consequently there was no question of filing any election petition. 10. Once the petitioner himself has admitted in the paragraphs referred to above that the elections had gone on as per schedule, the voting took place, Returning Officers were present and more than 50 per cent voters had participated, the fact however, remains that it is admitted by the petitioner that Annexure-5 was issued to him within about 3 weeks of the election having taken place. This being the factual position, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the elections were not held. 11. As stated above, results of elections are the foundation of the democratic system and any extra legal process for challenging such declaration of result is illegal and perhaps destabilise the law of elections to the democratic institution Nothing prevented the petitioner from challenging the election result through the election petition as envisaged in the provisions under Section 12 (2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 12. Consequently detention of this writ petition in this court will be inappropriate and unjust and it must be decided forthwith, hence the court has proceeded to do so. 13. As a result, this writ petition fails and in accordingly dismissed and the interim order dated 14-12-1990 is vacated.