The court emphasized that election disputes should be raised through the available legal remedy and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.

ORDER :

M.B. Shah, J. - Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 19800 of 2001 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for declaration that the reservation to the post of President of Mandal Parishad, Singareni in favour of Backward Class women was illegal being contrary to Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 7 of 1988 and Articles 243-D and 243-M of the Constitution of India and consequently, to declare the election of the appellant as illegal. The original petitioners belonged to Scheduled Tribe category and are residents of village under Singareni Mandal which has got thirteen territorial constituencies. According to them, the entire Singareni Mandal, except Singareni Village falls in the scheduled area. In the petition, it was contended that the post of President of Mandal Parishad ought to have been reserved in favour of the Scheduled Tribes and not in favour of any other class.

4. Admittedly, the respondents have not challenged the validity of the State legislation or Rules framed thereunder.

5. Despite this, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in view of the provisions contained in Section 4(g) of the Act, reservation in favour of the Scheduled Tribes is a legislative policy, reservation to the post of President could not have been made in favour of Backward Class women. Therefore, the Government order (G.O. No. 140 dated 20-4-2001) providing for reservation cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in the instant case. Consequently, the election to the post of President of Mandal Parishad was held to be a nullity. The High Court also directed that fresh election for the said constituency be conducted in accordance with law declaring the post of President reserved for members of Scheduled Tribes only. That judgment and order passed by the High Court is challenged by filing this appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution, the High Court has committed a patent error in entertaining the petition.

7. In our view, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant requires to be accepted for the following reasons:

Admittedly in the present case, Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats and Offices of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zila Parishads) Rules, 2001 were notified on 20-4-2001. On the basis of the said Rules, the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Deputy Election Authority issued a notification determining the number of members for the office of MPTC in all categories, namely, ST, SC, BC, women and unreserved in all mandals of Kothagudem Division. Thereafter, election was notified on 25-6-2001. It took place on 12-7-2001. Election results were declared on 28-7-2001. The writ petition was filed before the High Court on 12-9-2001. Admittedly, Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zila Parishads) Rules, 1995 applies and the election petition ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result. Therefore, on the date the petition before the High Court under Article 226 was filed, the appellant could not have approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance by way of election petition.

8. Apart from the delay in approaching the High Court it is settled law that election dispute could not have been raised in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court in Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416 held that in case of an election dispute, remedy is available at law for its redressal. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in law in giving directions not to declare the result of election or to conduct fresh poll. The Court relied (at SCC pp. 420-21, para 10) upon the following observations of this Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti, (1995) Supp (2) SCC 305:

"10.'What is mor