1. Challenge to an order directing a repoll in an election involving alleged violation of Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. S. Verma, K. S. Paripoornan, S. P. Bharucha
C. SUBRAHMANYAM, APPELLANT
Versus
K. RAMANJANEYULLU AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeal No. ... of 1996 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4446 of 1996),
decided on March 13, 1996.
The main legal point established is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained for the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition.
Headnote:
Article 226 - Writ Petition - Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained for the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order directing repoll made during the process of election. The main question was whether the order directing repoll is in violation of Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained for 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 impugned order of the High Court was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition should have been entertained in view of the remedy of election petition under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 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.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition. No costs were awarded. It was clarified that this order will not affect the remedy available to the aggrieved party under the Act.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a repoll order when a statutory remedy of an election petition exists. (Para 2 )
3. The primary issue involves non-compliance with a statutory provision, which is specifically listed as a ground for an election petition under Rule 12. (Para 3 )
4. A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable when the dispute concerns statutory non-compliance that is a ground for an election petition. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and writ petition dismissed, without prejudice to the remedy available under the Act. (Para 3 , 4 )
6. When is a writ petition under Article 226 not maintainable in election disputes?
A writ petition under Article 226 should not be entertained when the main question for decision is the non-compliance of a provision of the Act that serves as a ground for an election petition under the relevant rules. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The impugned order was made by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed to challenge an order directing repoll made during the process of election. The first question was whether the writ petition should have been entertained in view of the remedy of election petition under the Act. The High Court took the view that the main point for decision was whether the order directing repoll is in violation of Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having taken this view, the High Court proceeded to say that a reference was made to a provision of the Constitution in that order and, therefore, the writ petition would lie and the impugned order was quashed for violation of Section 231 of the Act.
3. 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside resulting in dismissal of the writ petition. No costs.
4. It is clarified that this order will not in any manner affect the remedy available to the aggrieved party under the Act and that should be decided without being influenced in any manner by the observations made in the High Courts order on merits, which is set aside.
