1. Challenge to municipal election via writ petition despite availability of statutory remedy under M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 969
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
JASPAL SINGH ARORA, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M.P., OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4980-81 of 1997 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 11007-11008 of 1997),
decided on July 21, 1997.
Election challenges to a municipality must be pursued through the statutory remedy of an election petition; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is barred by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution when such a statutory remedy is available.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 243-ZG - Municipalities Act - Challenge to election - Maintainability of writ petition - Where the mode of challenging an election is prescribed by statute through an election petition, the election cannot be called in question except by such petition - Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters under Article 243-ZG must be observed - Interference under Article 226 is not warranted when a statutory remedy is available and a previous writ petition for the same purpose has been dismissed. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The election of the appellant as President of a Municipal Council was challenged via a writ petition by a defeated candidate, which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that a statutory remedy of an election petition was available under the Municipalities Act. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed by a respondent to challenge the same election, which the High Court allowed, setting aside the election of the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The High Court overlooked the bar to interference by courts in electoral matters contained in Article 243-ZG of the Constitution and the settled principle that interference under Article 226 is not called for when a statutory provision for an election petition exists.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable to challenge a municipal election when a statutory remedy of an election petition is available and a constitutional bar exists under Article 243-ZG.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a statute prescribes a specific mode for challenging an election, that process must be followed. Article 243-ZG of the Constitution bars court interference in electoral matters except as provided by law. Therefore, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to set aside a municipal election where a statutory remedy is available.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 to set aside municipal election versus the requirement to file a statutory election petition. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. High Court overlooked the constitutional bar under Article 243-ZG and the availability of a statutory remedy for challenging municipal elections. (Para 3 )
4. Municipal elections cannot be challenged via Article 226 writ petitions when a statutory remedy exists and Article 243-ZG bars court interference. (Para 3 )
5. Appeals allowed, High Court order set aside, writ petition dismissed, and costs awarded. (Para 4 )
6. Can a municipal election be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution?
No, if a statutory remedy for filing an election petition is provided under the relevant Act and Article 243-ZG of the Constitution bars court interference in electoral matters. (Para 3 )
7. What is the effect of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution on electoral matters?
Article 243-ZG creates a bar to interference by courts in electoral matters, meaning elections should generally be challenged only through the prescribed statutory mechanism of an election petition. (Para 3 )
8. Does the availability of a statutory remedy preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in election disputes?
Yes, on settled principles, interference under Article 226 is not called for when a statutory provision for an election petition is available to challenge a municipality election. (Para 3 )
ORDER
1. The election of the petitioner Jaspal Singh Arora as President of the Municipal Council, Sehore was challenged by a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mahesh Chourasia who was a defeated candidate at the election. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the statutory remedy of challenging the election by an election petition was available under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and, therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by Laxmi Narayan Rather (Respondent 4 herein) to the same effect. The High Court by the impugned order dated 13-5-1997 has allowed that writ petition and set aside the election of the petitioner.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals must be allowed on a short ground. In view of the mode of challenging the election by an election petition being prescribed by the M.P. Municipalities Act, it is clear that the election could not be called in question except by an election petition as provided under that Act. The bar to interference by courts in electoral matters contained in Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was apparently overlooked by the High Court in allowing the writ petition. Apart from the bar under Article 243-ZG, on settled principles interference under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of setting aside election to a municipality was not called for because of the statutory provision for election petition and also the fact that an earlier writ petition for the same purpose by a defeated candidate had been dismissed by the High Court.
4. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 13-5-1997 passed by the High Court is set aside resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Respondent 4 in the High Court. In the circumstances of the case, we also direct Respondent 4 to pay to the appellant Rs. 5000 as costs.
