Judgment Rajan Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to include her name in the voter?list of Ward No. 9 of Gram Panchayat Panchanka, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal, as she also intends to contest election for the post of Sarpanch. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that name of the petitioner earlier figured at serial No. 91 at the time of general elections in the year 2005 in the voter?list of Ward No. 9 of Gram Panchayat Panchanka and same has been illegally deleted from the voter?list issued for the ensuing election. According to learned counsel, the petitioner had contested the election for the post of Sarpanch in the year 2005 and bye?election in August 2009 from Ward No. 9. According to him, the petitioner is already campaigning for the post of Sarpanch, but unfortunately her name is missing from the voter?list thereby depriving her of the opportunity to contest election. . 3. A reply by way of affidavit of Dr. Amit Kumar Aggarwal, Deputy Commissioner?cum? District Electoral Officer (Panchayat), Palwal, has been filed in Court. Learned counsel for the State has referred to the same and submitted that draft voter?list of the concerned Gram Panchayat was published on 11.3.2010 and wide publicity was given to this publication, as outlined in the affidavit. Pursuant to this, 242 claims and objections were received from the villagers which were disposed of in accordance with law. Thereafter, final voter?list was published on 15.4.2010. According to learned counsel, the petitioner never submitted any objections to the draft voter?list and sent representation only on 21.5.2010. He submits that in View of bar contained in Sub?section (6) of Section 166 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, addition, deletion or amendment in the voterlist cannot be made at this stage as election process has already been set in motion. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is evident that after publication of draft voter?list, official respondents had invited objections from the inhabitants of the village. Number of objections were received. Despite the fact that petitioner is stated to be politically active, she did not submit any objection to the draft voter?list within the prescribed period. For this reason, her name could not be included in the voter?list. Number of objections were received. Despite the fact that petitioner is stated to be politically active, she did not submit any objection to the draft voter?list within the prescribed period. For this reason, her name could not be included in the voter?list. She submitted a representation for the first time on 21.5.2010, Her claim, therefore, appears to be quite belated. Admittedly, election process has already been set in motion. In fact, it has made much headway by now. This apart, in view of bar contained in Section 166(6) of the Act, it is not possible at this stage to direct any amendment in the voter?list. Interference of this court in writ jurisdiction at this stage is thus, not warranted. The petition is, thus, dismissed. Petition dismissed.