The main legal point established in the judgment is that the maintainability of a writ petition to challenge an election is subject to the availability of an alternative remedy, such as an election petition, as provided under the relevant legal provisions.

ORDER :

Brijesh Kumar, J.

Leave granted.

2. By means of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court setting aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition setting aside the election of Respondent No. 1 to the office of the Chairman of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Bina, District Sagar on the ground that she was not qualified to hold the aforesaid office.

3. The appellant challenged the election of Respondent No. 1 on the ground that she lacks the qualification of being a Bhoswami in the area of Krishi Upaj Mandi on the relevant date as required under sub-section 1(a) of Section 11B of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. The other qualification which is essential so as to be elected to any office of the Krishi Mandi is as prescribed in clause 2(a) which requires that the name of the candidate should be included in the list of the voters of the market area and under clause 2(b) one has to be an agriculturist. The case of the appellant was that respondent No. 1 lacked all the above noted qualifications as the cut of date relevant for the purpose of reckoning the above noted qualifications was 1.1.1999, which has been held to be so both by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench.

4. The appellant's case, however, is that respondent No. 1 has purchased a small piece of land within the area of the concerned Krishi Upaj Mandi on 16.3.1999 which was mutated in her name on 21.3. 1999 in violation of the rules and her name was included in voters list on 27.3.1999. The election in fact has taken place in February, 2000 since there has been some interim order by Court against holding of the election. It also appears to be the case of the appellant that the voters list could not be revised after first day of January, 1999 and that too on the limited grounds as provided under Section 12 but those grounds did not exist in the present case.

5. The respondent No. 1 contested the writ petition and apart from resisting the ground of attack indicated above one of the objections was that the writ petition was not maintainable as the election was liable to be challenged only by means of an election petition. The appellant instead of availing of that remedy challenged the election about one year and ten months after the election when the limitation for filing an election petition had already run out. The learned Single Judge held that though a provision for filing an election petition was there but no procedure for its presentation was prescribed as a result of which the election petition could not be filed. Hence, the writ petition was entertained and allowed issuing writ of quo- warranto declaring that the respondent is not qualified to hold the office of Chair-person of Krishi Upaj Mandi Bina, District Sagar.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the respondent No.1 herein filed a writ appeal in the High Court which has been heard and allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court. On the first question regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, the Division Bench has held that the learned Single Judge was wrong in holding that an election petition could not be filed in the absence of Rules prescribing for the purpose of filing of an election petition. In that view of the matter, namely availability of the remedy of the election petition the Division Bench found that the writ petition would not be maintainable, however, at the same time it also entertained the points raised in the appeal on merits. The other findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, against the present respondent holding that she was not qualified to hold the office of the Chair-person have been held to be erroneous by the Division Bench. As a matter of fact, the Division Bench has allowed the appeal on both grounds namely the election petition was an alternative remedy available to the appellant to challenge the electi