ORDER
A.V. Srivastava Reddy, J.
1. In this writ petition preferred by the constituents of the Sadali Gram Panchayat the prayer is to quash the proceedings of the meeting conducted on 22-9-2001 by the Tahsildar, third respondent, in which the sixth respondent was unanimously elected as Adhyaksha of the Panchayat.
2. The main grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that, the meeting conducted by the third respondent, prescribed officer, in which the sixth respondent was unanimously elected lacked the quorum required for such a meeting as prescribed under Section 53(1) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 ('the Act' for short). The Gram Panchayat of Sadali consists of 14 elected members. Respondent 5 was the Adhyaksha of the said Gram Panchayat. She submitted her resignation to the post of Adhyaksha on 21-8-2001 to the second respondent. Consequently, the second respondent, Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division, Chikkaballapur, Kolar District issued the notification dated 31-8-2001 as per Section 48(3) of the Act. In pursuance of the vacancy of the post of Adhyaksha the second respondent issued notification dated 10-9-2001 fixing the calendar of events. According to the calendar of events, the meeting of Gram Panchayat was scheduled to be held on 22-9-2001 at 12-30 p.m. in the headquarters of Gram Panchayat, Sadali. The notification dated 10-9-2001 to that effect was issued as per Annexure-B. As per the notification Annexure-B, the filing of nomination, scrutiny, withdrawal and election had been fixed on22-9-2001 between 11 a.m. to 1.30 p.m. Respondent 6 alone had filed the nomination. On the date of the meeting i.e., 22-9-2001 only four members respondents 4 to 7, were present and in the mating respondent 6 was unanimously elected as the Adhyaksha. The petitioners contend that the number of members present at the meeting falls short of the required 1/3rd quorum of the total strength of the Sadali Panchayat which is 14. Hence, the present petition for the relief aforestated.
3. I have heard the learned Counsels on both sides.
4. The learned Government Pleader, Smt. Suman Hegde appearing for respondents 1 to 3, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition te not maintainable as any dispute relating to the validity of the election of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer having jurisdiction over the Panchayat area or the major portion of the Panchayat area, whose decision therein shall be final. It is further contended by her that even if the election of the sixth respondent is to be construed as a result of a violation of a statutory provision of the Act, still it could be challenged only in an election petition filed under Section 45(2) of the Act and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. In the light of the preliminary objections raised b;' *he learned Government Pleader the questions that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether an appropriate and efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 45(2) of the Act?
2. If so, whether the petitioners could, yet, be permitted in this writ petition to call in question the declaration of the sixth respondent as the Adhyaksha on the basis that the meeting held on 22-9-2001 and the resolution passed thereon were in violation of Section 53 of the Act?
6. Points 1 and 2:
In order to decide the issues raised for decision in this writ petition it becomes necessary to refer to Section 45(2) of the Art. It reads:
'45. Procedure for election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha on the establishment of Grama Panchayat, etc.--(1).. ...
(2) Any dispute relating to the validity of the election of a Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat under this Act shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer having jurisdiction over the Panchayat area or the major portion of the Panchayat area, whose decision thereon shall be final'.
(emphasis supplied)
The Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama Panchayat Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha Election) Rules, 1995 ('the Rules' for short) have also been framed under the Act governing matters relating to the election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Rule 14 of the Rules prescribes the forum as also the manner in which the election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha could be challenged. The said rule reads:
7. Mr. S.N. Aswathanarayana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied on the decision in Ashok v. Tawanappa Siddappa Jakkannavara and Ors., : ILR1989KAR123 wherein a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the question whether the legality of the declaration of the result of an election could be challenged in a writ petition, held:
'If the statutory Tribunal is not competent to examine the legality of the declaration of the result of an election, the aggrieved persons cannot be denied relief by refusing the writ jurisdiction'.
(emphasis supplied)
Relying on the said decision he submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not totally wiped out and this Court could still exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution under certain circumstances. In the said case the Court was dealing with the legality of the nominations made under Kamataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayat Act, 1983. The Zilla Parishads Act does not provide for any specific forum to examine the validity of the nomination of a member incompetent to be nominated to the Panchayat. Considering the fact that allowing such nomination to continue for want of a statutory provision to examine its validity would amount to a void act, the Division Bench held that the validity could be challenged in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. But, that is not the position obtaining herein. The Act as well as the Rule, in the present case, do provide a particular forum for deciding any dispute relating to the election of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. The forum so provided is to the exclusion of any other forum as the phrase, 'any dispute relating to the validity of the election of a Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat under this Act shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer having jurisdiction over the Panchayat area' would indicate. Thus, the principle enunciated in the said ruling has no application to the facts of the present case.
8. Next, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in Khatib, Irshad Ahmed, Mohammed Hussain and Ors. v. The Returning Officer for election to the Shishuvinahal Grama Panchayat, Shiggaon Taluk, Dharwad District., : ILR1998KAR1813 to substantiate his contention that a writ petition is maintainable for challenging the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination papers. The said decisiondoes not advance the case of the petitioner any further because the decision proceeds to observe that a plain reading of Sub-section (1) of Section 15 together with the explanation of the phrase 'returned candidate' makes it clear that an election petition would lie when there is declaration of the results and there is a 'returned candidate'. There could be no quarrel in regard to the legal position of availability of the writ jurisdiction for calling in question any pre-election' action if it is in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. But the post-election scenario is exclusively governed by Section 15(1) of the Act in the case of election of a member and Section 45(2) in the case of election of a Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat. The Act and the Rules framed thereunder elaborately provide for the forum, the manner in which the challenge has to be made and the procedure to be adopted by the prescribed judicial officer while dealing with the election petition. In the case of such clear provisions both in the Act and the Rules there would be no gainsay in contending otherwise and such contention only merits to be rejected.
9. Further, Section 45(2) speaks of 'any dispute' whatever be its nature. The petitioner herein complains of non-observance of provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder which would be squarely covered by the description 'any dispute' as found in Section 45(2). The complaint of the petitioner herein is that the quorum prescribed under the Act was not present at the meeting in which the sixth respondent was elected, resulting in non-compliance of the provisions of the Act. If the election of the sixth respondent is as a result of non-compliance of Section 53 of the Act, in terms of Section 45(2) of the Act, the only proper remedy for the aggrieved party would be to call in question the result of such non-compliance in an election petition. In C. Subrahmanyam v. K. Ramanjaneyulu and Ors, : (1998)8SCC703 the Apex Court was seized of an order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to the effect that a writ petition was maintainable against an order directing repoll made during the process of election. Dealing with the said issue, the Apex Court observed:
'In our opinion, the main question for decision being the non-compliance 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'.
To similar effect is the decision in Umesh Shivappa Ambi and Ors v. Angadi Shekara Basappa and Ors., : AIR1999SC1566 where the Apex Court settled the law as to the proper remedy that a party aggrieved by an election result has to pursue in the following terms:
'Once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere with the electionsunder Article 226. The High Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226. The High Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70(2)(c) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or Member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law. This was, therefore, not a fit case for intervention under Article 226'.
In M. Venkataramaiah v. Chief Election Commissioner, Bangalore and Ors., : ILR1995KAR1821 this Court had occasion to examine the question as to which is the right forum for calling in question the declaration of an election result under the Act. Dealing with the issue at para 8 of its order, the Court held:
'The election of the members of the Zilla Panchayat are held under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. Section 19 of the Act provides the grounds for declaring the election void. A petition questioning the election can be filed before the Munsiff having jurisdiction. If there is any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rules or Orders made thereunder, the Munsiff shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. It is therefore clear that the forum is constituted for questioning the election of the candidate under the Panchayat Raj Act'.
Thus, the case-law on the point also leaves nothing to doubt that where the statute provides for an effective alternative remedy, the party aggrieved cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. Perhaps comprehending the futility of pressing this point any further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to wriggle out of the situation by contending that what is mainly under challenge in the present writ petition is the proceedings of the meeting which, according to him, is perforce illegal because it lacked the required quorum. Countering the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the election petition alone is the remedy to challenge the election of the returned candidate, he submitted that he could still challenge the proceedings of the meeting held on the date of election in writ petition and if the proceedings of the meeting is held to be illegal, then as a natural corollary the election of the respondent 6 has to be declared void. The said submission overlooks the vital aspect that the meeting now under challenge was one convened under Section 44 of the Act essentially for electing the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat. The meeting was held and the sixth respondent was elected as Adhyaksha. Even assumingthat the meeting held to elect the Adhyaksha contravened any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and the meeting resulted in the declaration of the sixth respondent as having been elected as Adhyaksha, any dispute relating to such a meeting would be a dispute relating to the validity of the election itself as the meeting was essentially one conducted for electing the Adhyaksha. The meeting if it contravened any of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder would have the effect of nullifying the election itself and therefore a dispute relating to the validity of such a meeting is in law a dispute relating to the validity of the election itself. Therefore, any argument which attempts at segregating the meeting and the election of the Adhyaksha at the meeting cannot be countenanced at all because the meeting as well as the election of the Adhyaksha in the meeting go hand in hand and for purposes of determining the forum for deciding a dispute arising in relation to an election or the meeting in which an election takes place it would be the end result that serves as the deciding factor and hence in this case it would be the forum prescribed under Section 45(2) of the Act. Where the non-compliance of a statutory provision which is complained of leads to a greater mischief, the greater mischief alone would determine the forum for challenge and not the cause which led to the greater mischief. Even conceding that the petitioner would be entitled to challenge the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act under the writ jurisdiction, where such non-compliance leads further to a greater mischief which could be challenged only in an election petition, then, in such a situation, the forum which has the jurisdiction to deal with the greater mischief alone will have jurisdiction to decide the issue of non-compliance with the statutory provision also. To hold otherwise would bring about disastrous results. If an aggrieved party is allowed to challenge the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act in a writ proceedings while simultaneously permitting him to challenge the resultant election of the returned candidate in an election petition on the same set of facts and on similar grounds, then there is every possibility that it would bring about conflicting results. That would be a sheer abuse of process of law which cannot be countenanced at all. There is no need to elaborate much on this point as any dispute relating to the validity of the election of a Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat should be called in question exclusively in an election petition filed under Section 45(2) of the Act. The challenge now made to the election of Adhyaksha contrary to Section 45(2) of the Act is, therefore, not maintainable.
11. Be that as it may, there is a constitutional bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters under Article 243-O of the Constitution. Article 243-O(2) reads:
'243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.--Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution.-
(a) xxx xxx xxx (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the legislature of a State'.
Thus, an election to a Panchayat does not brook interference except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided under the Act. A challenge to it could not be sustained in any other forum even on the ground that the meeting in which the resolution was passed was held in contravention of the Act and the Rules. Any dispute regarding the validity of the meeting held under Section 44 in which the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been elected also should exclusively be decided by the prescribed authority under Section 45(2) of the Act as it would invariably amount to a dispute relating to the election of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha. All disputes relating thereto including the validity of the meeting itself would be subject to the jurisdiction of the prescribed officer under the Act, once the process of election is complete and a member is returned as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha.
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision in Shambugowda v. State of Karnataka and Ors., : AIR2000Kant381 which lays down the principle, 'that since this fraction of difference being less than 50% of a full one number, it is desirable to construe and conclude this difference as negligible and will have to be ignored'. This decision would not be of any assistance to the petitioner as I do not propose to go into the aspect of sufficiency or otherwise of the quorum of the meeting held to elect respondent 6. The other decisions cited at the Bar viz., Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, : (1985)4SCC689 Indrajit Barua and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors. : AIR1986SC103 and Govindaswami v. State of Tamilnadu, : 1998CriLJ2913 have no bearing to the issues involved in this writ petition and there is no need to advert to them in this order.
13. In the view that I have taken, I find it is not necessary for me to decide the question whether the meeting constituted to elect the Adhyaksha and the Upadhyaksha was properly constituted or whether it had the required quorum. All these questions are left open for the petitioners to urge in a properly presented election petition before the appropriate forum.
14. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the writ petition is rejected as not maintainable.