Chandigarh, March 31 -- The Haryana Congress on Monday wrote to the Election Commission (EC) alleging serious irregularities in the conduct of March 16 Rajya Sabha elections for two seats from Haryana. In a representation submitted to the EC, Congress Legislature Party (CLP) leader, Bhupinder Singh Hooda, Haryana Congress president Rao Narender Singh, and party candidate Karamvir Singh Boudh accused the returning officer (RO), Pankaj Agarwal of acting in a partial and illegal manner during the Upper House poll. The Congress leaders alleged that valid votes cast by party MLAs were arbitrarily rejected, including that of Tohana MLA Paramvir Singh, which was declared invalid on grounds of alleged breach of secrecy. The representation said that no objection was raised at the time of voting and the rejection occurred later on a rather "flimsy" interpretation of videographic evidence. The Congress leaders also alleged irregularities in the counting process, including improper handling of ballots, repeated placement and removal of votes, and disregard of objections raised by Congress counting agents. Seeking intervention of EC, the Congress has demanded that the rejected votes be counted and an inquiry be initiated against the RO followed by disciplinary action. The state Congress leaders have also sought a personal hearing with the full commission in this regard. While the state Congress is well within its rights to complain to the EC, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a law enacted by Parliament for governing conduct of elections, including electoral offences and resolution of election disputes, clearly states that "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part". The Act draws power from Article 329 (b) of the Constitution which says that no election to either House of Parliament or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. In a January 1952 judgment (NP Ponnuswami v/s Returning Officer, Namakkal constituency), Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali had ruled that it seems to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question could be urged. "I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision,'' the apex court said. The SC also said that it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to state that the Act provided for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage....