JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- "(A). That, the complete record of election of President, Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain including the official videography may kindly be called from the office of respondent No.3 before this Hon'ble Court. (B). That, the respondents be directed to conduct the election process afresh by a new presiding/returning officer. (C). That, the respondent No.1 be directed to conduct an inquiry against respondent No.2, 3 and 4. (D). Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may kindly be given to petitioners along with cost of this petition." 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioners No.1 to 13 are the elected members of the Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain whereas, the petitioner no.11 to 13 are the representatives of the members of the said Gram Panchayat whowere to participate in the election of President and Vice President of Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain which took place on 27/7/2022. The grievance of the petitioners is that on the date when the elections were to take place i.e. on 27/7/2022, the petitioners No.1 to 10 who are illiterate and other three members of the Janpad Panchayat who are being represented by petitioners No.11, 12 and 13 in this petition, were not allowed to cast their votes despite there being a specific provision for casting of votes as provided under Rule 16 (5) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat (Up-Sarpanch, President and VicePresident) Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 which provides as under:- "16. Manner of recording votes, counting of votes and declaration of result. - (1) The Presiding Officer shall provide ballot box for the election of these seats. Such ballot box shall be of such design that the ballot paper can be inserted therein but cannot be withdrawn therefrom without the box being unlocked and the seal being broken. (2) The Presiding Officer shall immediately before the voting starts show the empty box to such members as may be present in the meeting so that they may be satisfied that it is empty and shall then secure and seal the box in such manner that the slit in the box for insertion of ballot paper therein remains open and shall also allow the candidates to affix their own seals in the space in the box meant therefor if they so desire. (3) The Presiding Officer shall cause the ballot paper to be prepared in the Form III. (4) Every Pancha or Member, as case may be wishing to vote shall be provided with a ballot paper. The Presiding Officer shall put his signature on the ballot paper before supply, so as to indicate its authenticity. The voter shall then proceed to the place set apart for voting [and put the mark by a seal of rounded arrow given by the Presiding Officer] on the ballot paper against the name of the candidate for whom he wishes to vote. He shall then fold the ballot paper so as to maintain secrecy and insert the same in the ballot box placed in the view of the Presiding Officer. (5) (i) If the Presiding Officer is satisfied that owing to illiteracy, blindness or other physical infirmity, a voter is unable to record his vote, the Presiding Officer shall permit him to take a [companion who is the nearest family member of the Voter], who is not less than eighteen years in age to record the vote of the member on his behalf and in accordance with his wishes : Provided that before any person is permitted to act as companion of any member under this rule the person shall be required to declare in Form IV-A that he will keep secret the vote recorded by him on behalf of voter and that he has not already acted as companion of any member : [Provided further that the voter shall not avail the advantage of illiteracy if he has the certificate of literacy and the body disability shall be such that he could not vote, if the voter is handicapped then it is necessary to produce the certificate of handicap.] (ii) Presiding Officer shall keep a record in Form IV-B of all cases under this rule." (emphasis supplied) 3. Thus, the case of the petitioners is that the election took place in their absence wherein, they were deprived of their right to vote which has led to the election of respondent No.5 who has been declared as elected on 27/7/2022, as void, however, the notification as provided under Rule 22 has not been issued on account of the interim order passed by this Court on 4/8/2022. 4. 4. Shri A.K. Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent No.3, the Presiding Officer has conducted the election in an arbitrary manner and has not allowed the petitioners' representatives to cast their vote and thus, it is prayed that the election process be again taken up afresh by appointing a new Presiding Officer. In support of this contention, Shri Sethi has relied upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pradhuman Verma Vs State of M.P. and others reported as 2017 SCC OnLine MP 2305 wherein it is held that despite there being a remedy of election petition as provided under Sec. 122 of the Adhiniyam, a writ petition can still be maintained. Shri Sethi has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that as an interim direction, the issuance of notification under Rule 22 has already been stayed by this Court on 4/8/2022, hence the remedy of election petition as provided under Sec. 122 is also not available to the petitioners. Counsel has also submitted that the petitioner No.10 Sarita Bai had contested for the post of President but she was also not allowed to cast her vote. 5. On the other hand, the petition has been opposed by the respondents. A reply has also been filed by the Respondent No.1 to 3/Election Commission and it is submitted by Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission that the petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of availability of efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioners in the form of election petition as provided under Sec. 122 of the Adhiniyam. It is further submitted that the decision on which the counsel for the petitioners is relying upon i.e. Pradhuman Verma (Supra) has already been taken note of by another judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.710/2022 dtd. 28/6/2022, which has also been followed by this Court in W.P. No.15962/2022 dtd. 13/9/2022. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.11 to 13 are not the members of the Janpad Panchayat who were supposed to cast their votes but they are the representatives and as such, they do not have any locus to be arrayed as petitioners in this petition. 13/9/2022. It is also submitted that the petitioner No.11 to 13 are not the members of the Janpad Panchayat who were supposed to cast their votes but they are the representatives and as such, they do not have any locus to be arrayed as petitioners in this petition. It is also submitted that, even if the other members, viz., Rameshwar, Anita and Sharmila to whom respondent No.11 to 13 were representing, were suffering from Covid-19, nothing had stopped them from coming to the booth to cast their votes as it is nobody's case that they were prevented from voting solely because they were suffering from Covid-19. It is also submitted that even their RTPCR reports are dubious in nature as all three of them obtained such reports only in the preceding night of election and it appears that only with a view to cast their votes through their proxies, these RTPCR reports have been obtained. It is also submitted that even otherwise, Rule 16(5) clearly provides that, if a person is not in a position to cast his vote owing to his illiteracy, blindness or any other physical infirmity, he can be accompanied by his nearest family members however, in the present case, the petitioners No. 11 to 13 are not the family members of the voter members and in such circumstances also, the petition being misconceived, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Shri Airen has also submitted that the entire record of election process has already been sealed in accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules and thus the only course available to the petitioners is to file an election petition. 7. Shri Ajay Bagadia, learned senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has also vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that the writ petition is misconceived as the only course available to the petitioners is to challenge the election of respondent No.5 by way of an election petition as provided under Sec. 122 of the Adhiniyam. It is further submitted that even if there is violation of any rules, in that case also, this Court cannot enter into the appreciation of the alleged irregularities committed by the Officer in this writ petition as the parties would have ample opportunities to lead their evidence if the election petition is filed. It is further submitted that even if there is violation of any rules, in that case also, this Court cannot enter into the appreciation of the alleged irregularities committed by the Officer in this writ petition as the parties would have ample opportunities to lead their evidence if the election petition is filed. It is further submitted that the arguments as advanced by the Senior counsel for the petitioners that the remedy of election petition is not available to them on account of stay order passed by this Court runs contrary to logic as on one hand the petitioners have obtained the stay and on the other hand it is argued that only because of the stay, the petitioners cannot avail the alternative remedy of election petition. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate in the same breath and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. From the record, it is apparent that the petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged irregularities committed by the Returning Officer in the conduct election of President and Vice President of Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain as it is alleged that the petitioners have been deprived of their right to cast their votes in the said election which took place on 27/07/2022 as it is alleged that the Returning Officer has not followed the procedure as provided under Rule 16(5) of the M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 when the petitioners' claim was that they were illiterate and some of the petitioners were also suffering from Covid-19. It is also found that vide order dtd. 04/08/2022, as an interim measure, this Court has also directed the respondents not to issue the Notification under Rule 22 of the Rules of 1995 which relates to notifying the election of President/Vice President. Thus, although the respondent No.5 has already been elected as President but the notification to this effect has not yet been issued owing to the interim order passed by this Court on 04/08/2022. 10. Thus, although the respondent No.5 has already been elected as President but the notification to this effect has not yet been issued owing to the interim order passed by this Court on 04/08/2022. 10. On a careful perusal of the documents on record, as also the relief sought in the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that to call for the complete record of the election of the President, Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain including the official videography before this Court would amount to opening the pendora box and to venturing into an arena which is reserved for the election petitions. 11. So far as the decision rendered by this court on 13/09/2022 passed in WP No. 15962/2022 is concerned, the relevant para of the same reads as under:- "10. Reference may also be had to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyullu, reported as (1998) 8 SCC 703 , wherein it is held, as under:- "2. The impugned order was made by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed to challenge an order directing re-poll made during the process of election. The first question was whether the writ petition should have been entertained in view of the remedy of election petition under the Act. The High Court took the view that the main point for decision was whether the order directing re-poll is in violation of Sec. 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having taken this view, the High Court proceeded to say that a reference was made to a provision of the Constitution in that order and, therefore, the writ petition would lie and the impugned order was quashed for violation of Sec. 231 of the Act. 3. In our opinion, the main question for decision being the noncompliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained for this purpose. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. No costs. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. No costs. 4. It is clarified that this order will not in any manner affect the remedy available to the aggrieved party under the Act and that should be decided without being influenced in any manner by the observations made in the High Court's order on merits, which is set aside." 11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Subrahmanyam (supra), no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed with liberty to take recourse of the alternative remedy of election petition as provided under the Adhiniyam of 1993 and the Rules made thereunder." (emphasis supplied) 12. So far as the decision relied upon by Shri Sethi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the case of Pradhuman Verma (supra) is concerned, it does not lay down any proposition that in all the election matters, writ petitions are maintainable and it is for the concerned court only to see if the alternative remedy is not efficacious. And under the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, since this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Articel 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this writ petition, the aforesaid decision in the case of Pradhuman Verma (supra) is of no avail to the petitioners. 13. Resultantly, the petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The interim relief granted earlier stands vacated, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to take recourse of appropriate remedy of Election Petition, if they are so advised, to ventilate their grievance.