SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed as public interest litigation by Mr. Hanuman Choudhary who is an advocate practicing in the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(2.) BY means of the present petition the petitioner has challenged holding of elections to the Panchayat Raj Institutions in Rajasthan in two phases and has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondents to hold elections on the same day i. e. in one phase or in the alternate it has also been prayed that if the elections are allowed to be held in two phases by the respondents then the result of the elections held in two phases should be declared on the same day. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act No. 13 of 1994) the State Government has decided to hold elections for Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad and other Panchayati Raj Institutions and in pursuance of the said decision the Election Commission has issued a Schedule for holding the aforesaid elections which has been published in the newspaper known as Rajasthan Patrika, dated 29. 12. 94. A copy of the said Schedule (programme of the Elections) as published in Rajasthan Patrika has been filed as Annexure-1 to this petition. From the aforesaid Schedule, it appears that the Election Commission has decided to hold elections in two phases. In the first phase a voter shall be called upon to elect a member for the Zila Parishad and a member for the Panchayat Samiti. In the second Phase the elections for the Gram Panchayat will be held. We have heard the petitioner who is an Advocate and has appeared in person. The main thrust of the argument of the petitioner is that the State Government has decided to hold elections in two phases for the advantage of the Ruling Party. To pointed gueries put by us the petitioner has failed to point out any provisions of the Act or the Rules which prohibits the holding of elections for these institutions in two phases. The petitioner has also failed to place any material on record as to how the holding of elections in two phases will be advantageous to the Ruling Party and would be detrimental to other political parties or candidates which/who may contest in the said elections. In view of the said fact we are of the considered view that holding of elections in two phases by the Election Commission is neither arbitrary, illegal, contrary to any provisions of Act or Rules and the apprehension of. The petitioner that the State Government has decided to hold elections in two phases only for the advantage of the Ruling Party is based on no material. The next argument advanced by the petitioner is that the State Government will have to incur huge expenditure by holding elections in two phases and this misuse of public fund can be avoided by holding elections in a single phase instead of two phases. The Schedule dated 29. 12. 94 issued by the Election Commission indicates that the decision of holding elections in two phases has been taken keeping in view the administrative exigencies, huge number of personnel- s of -the State Government which would be required for conducting the aforesaid elections and also in view of the large number of Panchayat Samitis, Zila Parishads and candidates so that the proper election may be conducted. It is well known fact that for holding elections on such a large scale the huge machinery is required as well as large number of police personnel- s are also required for the proper maintenance of law and order. The element of expenditure is always involved in holding elections and in our opinion the action of the respondents in holding elections in two phases cannot be held to be arbitrary on the ground that it will involve huge expenditure. No other submission has been made on behalf of the petitioner. After hearing the petitioner and perusal of the material on record, we are of the opinion that the petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed in limine and it is accordingly rejected. .;