JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by one voter Chhitarmal of Gram Panchayat Nathusar, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar for declaration that the declaration of result of the election of respondent No.6 as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nathusar by Returning Officer be declared illegal and also be set aside on the ground inter alia that election of respondent No.6 to the office of Sarpanch after having been declared ineligible upto 16.10.2000 is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable apart from being contrary to the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter, referred, 'the Act of 1994'). 2. It is to be noticed that under section 43 of aforesaid Act of 1994, only a candidate can question the declaration of result by Returning Officer by filing an election petition under the Act on the grounds enumerated under Rule 80 of the Election Rules framed thereunder within prescribed period of limitation. There is no provision where election of an elected office bearer of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act can be challenged by a voter by filing a writ petition in public interest litigation side to wreak his vengeance. 3. Thus, an election of an elected Sarpanch under the Act of 1994 and Rules framed thereunder can be questioned by any candidate by way of filing an election petition against declaration of result of Sarpanch by Returning Officer within prescribed period of limitation and on the prescribed ground or grounds enumerated under Rule 80 of Election Rules of 1994. We are of the view that after expiry of prescribed period of limitation an elector or electors are not entitled to file either a writ petition or writ petition in public interest litigation side at the behest of any candidate, on his failure to file an election petition within prescribed period on prescribed grounds enumerated under Rule 80 of Election Rules framed under Act of 1994. In garb of interpretation this Court cannot afford to substitute any elector in place of any candidate used under Section 43 of Act of 1994. It is further to be noticed that under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, an election petition can be filed by a candidate of such election or any other elector whereas there is no such provision under Section 43 of Act of 1994. It is further to be noticed that under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, an election petition can be filed by a candidate of such election or any other elector whereas there is no such provision under Section 43 of Act of 1994. It is dearly provided that the result of an election declared by Returning Officer can be questioned only by a candidate and not by an elector. We are of the opinion that once the State Legislature has provided under Section 43 of Act of 1994 that only a candidate can file an election petition then this Court cannot go behind the wisdom of legislature by holding that as an elector is not entitled to file an election petition under Section 43 of Act of 1994 and Election Rules framed thereunder, therefore, such elector is entitled to question the declaration of result of Sarpanch by Returning Officer by filing a writ petition or writ petition in public interest side. In our considered opinion, in garb of interpretation of Section 43 of Act of 1994, this Court cannot afford to add an additional word "elector" by making him entitled to file an election petition nor it is possible for this Court to permit elector to file a writ petition or a petition in public interest side questioning the declaration of result of a Sarpanch by Returning Officer. We are also of the view that if it is not possible for this Court to do a thing directly it is impermissible to make it possible to do the same thing indirectly. In garb of interpretation, legislation by the Courts is impermissible. 4. The controversy involved in the present writ petition came-up for consideration in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 581/2000 Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 6.3.2000) [reported in 2000(2) RLR 18 ) , by one of us while sitting in Single Bench. In the aforesaid writ petition, two substantial questions were framed and answered in negative. The controversy involved in the present writ petition came-up for consideration in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 581/2000 Gopal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 6.3.2000) [reported in 2000(2) RLR 18 ) , by one of us while sitting in Single Bench. In the aforesaid writ petition, two substantial questions were framed and answered in negative. Those questions are reproduced here in below for ready reference: "1 Whether this Court can go behind the wisdom of the State Legislature, providing an election petition by any candidate under Section 43 of Act of 1994 after declaration of result on the grounds enumerated under Rule 80 of the Election Rules 1994 within thirty days framed under the said Act by substituting any voter in place of any candidate in garb of interpretation ? 2 Whether the result declared in favour of respondent No.6, Shiv Prasad Meena, duly declared elected Sarpanch of Panchayat Circle Hurla aforesaid can be challenged before this Court, by filing a writ petition by the present three voters or it can be challenged only by any candidate as envisaged under Section 43 of Act of 1994 ?" 5. We have gone through the decision rendered by one of us in case of Gopal (supra). We are in full agreement with the preposition of law laid down in case of Gopal (supra) and we see no reason to defer (sic differ) with the same. We consider it just and proper to reiterate the preposition of law laid down in case of Gopal (supra), 6. It is well to remember that public interest litigation is made entertain able where public interest is involved. The public interest litigation is of recent origin evolved by higher courts of record to advance public interest not individual interest by taking resort to public interest litigation. 7. We are satisfied from the averments made in the instant writ petition that in the present public interest litigation petition, no public interest is involved but the petitioner has filed the present petition to settle his personal vengeance with the respondent No.6 who is declared elected by Returning Officer as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nathusar. 7. We are satisfied from the averments made in the instant writ petition that in the present public interest litigation petition, no public interest is involved but the petitioner has filed the present petition to settle his personal vengeance with the respondent No.6 who is declared elected by Returning Officer as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nathusar. The present writ petition is not maintainable as it does not relate to public interest but it is confined to the individual interest of the petitioner to wreak his vengeance, which is impermissible.For the reasons discussed here in above, the instant writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed at admission stage without issuing notice to the respondents. Petition Dismissed *******