JUDGMENT : Present appeal arises from order dated 23rd February 2015 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1745/2015 holding that the results of elections for the post of Sarpanch under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (herein after 'the Act') could only be questioned in an Election Petition in the prescribed manner under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (herein after 'the Rules') and that Article 226 was not the appropriate remedy, by passing the statutory remedy of an election petition. 2. We have heard counsel for the appellant. 3. In view of the law laid down as far back in N.P. Pannuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakal, Salem Distt. & others, AIR 1952 SC 64 , in this regard we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. Section 43 of the Act provides for determination of disputes as to elections by presenting an application in the prescribed manner before the District Judge having jurisdiction within prescribed period. The period prescribed under rule 80 for filing such application is 30 days. The writ petition was filed well within period of 30 days from 24th January 2015 when results were published. 5. In Danda Rajeshwari v. Bodavula Hanumayamma & Ors., JT 1996 (7) 212 under similar circumstances when the writ petition was declined to be entertained in view of remedy of election petition available and which had been presented within limitation period for filing of election petition; declining to entertain the writ petition it was observed as follows: "3..........The High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution declined to interfere in the election disputes since alternative remedy of filing election petition and adjudication has been provided in the relevant statutory rules. Far from saying that the High Court has no jurisdiction, High Court exercised self restraint in exercise of the power under Article 226 and directed the parties to avail of alternative remedy. In this case admittedly, the elections of Sarpanch was held and result was declared on June 24, 1995 and the writ petition was filed on June 25, 1995. Power of the Government on the process of electoral rolls was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition in question is also one of such writ petitions. In this case admittedly, the elections of Sarpanch was held and result was declared on June 24, 1995 and the writ petition was filed on June 25, 1995. Power of the Government on the process of electoral rolls was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition in question is also one of such writ petitions. Under the circumstances, the High Court thought it expedient that since elections were already held, the disputed questions of facts would be canvassed in an election petition as provided in Rule 3 of the Rules, the High Court rightly declined to investigate into disputed question of facts and refused to go into the question relegating the parties to pursue the remedy of election dispute. In view of this the High Court has rightly directed filing of the election petition within three weeks from the date of disposal of the writ petition and further directed the Tribunal not to go into the question of limitation and instead decide the matter on merits...." 6. We, therefore, dispose this appeal with like observations, granting liberty to appellant to prefer an election petition within 30 days, if so advised. 7. The appeal is disposed with the aforesaid observations. Appeal disposed of.