D.
Though I don't find any grammatical error in A.

The correct answer is (C).
The original sentence (A) contains a misplaced modifying phrase (following the comma). The sentence's construction suggests that it is the electorate that cannot reasonably be disputed, although this makes little sense in the context of the sentence as a whole.

(B) suffers from a confusing syntax. It appears from the sentence's construction that the elected officials - rather than the fact that they ignored their electorate's wishes - cannot be disputed. (B) also misplaces the prepositional phrase "on this issue" between the gerund "ignoring" and the object of that gerund, "the wishes of the electorate."

(C) remedies the underlined phrase's faulty construction by rephrasing it as a noun clause.

(D) improperly uses a comma between two clauses that do not constitute independent sentences on their own. (D) also sets up a parallel between "were ignoredтАа" and "cannot reasonably." Both phrases seem to refer to "the wishes of the electorate," although this is probably not the intended meaning.

(E) is the second-best response; it corrects the misplaced-modifier problem in the original version. In two respects, however, (E) is not as effective a sentence as (C). First, in (E) it is less clear that the modifying phrase "on this issue" refers to the wishes of the electorate. Second, (E) employs the passive voice ("wishes...were ignored by...officials") rather than the preferred active voice ("officials ignored the wishes...").

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"