JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Dana Ram S/o Bhagwan Ram said to be a resident of village Derajsar, Gram Panchayat Sudsar, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, District Bikaner has filed this writ petition stating grievance that in the elections to Gram Panchayat Sudsar as held on 21.01.2010, the respondent No.3 also filed her nomination and submitted requisite declaration including that relating to the particulars of children; and that she stated having two children but then, an application raising objections against such statement and regarding qualification of the respondent No.3 was filed on 21.01.2010 (Annex.4) itself that was endorsed to the higher authorities by the election officer. 2. It is submitted that the election officer in the first place acted illegally in forwarding the application to the higher authorities though per rule 27 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, such objections ought to have been decided at the time of scrutiny of nomination form itself and there was no occasion for forwarding the same to the authorities concerned. It is further submitted that the authorities are still sitting tight over the matter and have not taken any decision on the objections so raised and in the result, the respondent No.3 is unauthorizedly continuing in the office. 3. During the course of submissions, upon this Court expressing reservations on the very locus of the petitioner to take up the matter in the writ jurisdiction and on other queries, the learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that the petitioner has not been the signatory of the application (Annex.4) but submitted that the objections were raised by two of the candidates viz., Smt. Bhanwari Devi and Smt. Kiran Devi and that one of them i.e., Smt. Bhanwari Devi, is the wife of the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that no election petition has been filed questioning the election of the respondent No.3. 4. The totality of the circumstances are that the petitioner had not been the person who raised the objection before the election officer and then, significantly, though the petitioner's wife had raised such objection but admittedly no election petition has been filed in the matter. 4. The totality of the circumstances are that the petitioner had not been the person who raised the objection before the election officer and then, significantly, though the petitioner's wife had raised such objection but admittedly no election petition has been filed in the matter. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there appears no reason to entertain this writ petition so as to consider the objections as sought to be raised by the petitioner against the election of the respondent No.3 or on the so called inaction on the part of the authorities concerned or against the action of the election officer. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner stressed on the submissions that the directions may be issued to the authorities for taking decision on the objections concerned. 6. In view of what has been discussed above that the persons who filed the objection are not before the Court and then, the persons who filed the objections had the opportunity to file the election petition but did not do so, so far as the present petition is concerned, this Court finds no reason to issue any direction or even to make any observations for the purpose of the authorities concerned. The prayer is declined. 7. The writ petition stands rejected.Petition Dismissed. *******