JUDGMENT : 1. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner prays mainly for the following relief: “(a) For challenging the vires of Clause 18¼1½¼ ढ½ ^^vxj mlds nks ls vf/kd thfor larku gS] ijUrq ;g fd bl vf/kfu;e ds Áo`r gksus ds ,d o"kZ dh vof/k rd ;k fQj vxj fdlh O;fDr dks nks ls vf/kd larku gSa rks og v;ksX; ugha gksxk** 14.11.2022 issued under the signature of State Election Commission, by which certain condition has been imposed for contesting the local municipal election of Municipality of the year 2022-23, which is ultra vires in nature.” 2. The issue involved in this writ application is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was in seisin of similar provision in Javed and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 369 , wherein, the vires of Section 175(1)(q) and 177(1) of Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994) was challenged, where a disqualification was prescribed to a person who had more than two living children after one year of cut-off date. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that such provision is not ultra vires to the Constitution. At paragraph 64 and 65, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the matter has held as follows: “64. Hypothetical examples were tried to be floated across the bar by submitting that there may be cases where triplets are born or twins are born on the second pregnancy and consequently both of the parents would incur disqualification for reasons beyond their control or just by freak of divinity. Such are not normal cases and the validity of the law cannot be tested by applying it to abnormal situations. Exceptions do not make the rule nor render the rule irrelevant. One swallow does not make a summer; a single instance or indicator of something is not necessarily significant. Conclusion 65. The challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 175(1)(q) and 177(1) fails on all the counts. Both the provisions are held, intra-vires the Constitution. The provisions are salutary and in public interest. All the petitions which challenge the constitutional validity of the abovesaid provisions are held liable to be dismissed.” 3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.