SATYABRATA SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH an interesting question has been raised in this writ petition by mr. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner questioning rejection of nomination of the writ petitioner on misinterpretation of Section 19 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj Act, yet, having due regard to the provisions contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, we cannot interfere with the matter in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that notification for election has been issued on 22-6-2001. The impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been passed on 1-7-2001. Although, a prima facie case has been made out, having regard to the limitation of this court s power, we are of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. Article 243-O of the Constitution reads thus:"bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. Notwithstanding anything in this constitution,. . (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any Court; (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 law made by the Legislature of a State. "

( 3 ) APART from the fact that there existed a general provision to the effect that the writ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India would not ordinarily interfere with an election process, a constitutional mandate now has been issued by reason of the said provision. The question raised in this application is squarely covered by a decision of the Apex Court in n. P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer, namakkal wherein it has been held:"as we have seen, the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word "election" in Article 329 (b ). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. "

( 4 ) THE Court relied upon the judgment of Mahajanj (as his Lordship then was) in satnarain vs. Hanuman Parshad; it was observed:"it seems to me that the word election has been used in Part XV of the Constitution is the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the Legislature. The use of the expression "conduct of elections" in Art. 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Art. 329 (b ). That the word "election" bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins. "

( 5 ) THIS aspect of the matter has also been considered recently by one of us (V. V. S. Rao,j) in V. Narayana vs. Election officer, Alwal Municipality wherein having regard to the provision contained in article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, which is in pari materia with Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, it was held:"there cannot be any doubt that a challenge to an election means and includes a challenge to any intermediary stage in the election. These intermediary stages could be issue of election notification , filing of nominations, scrutiny of nominations, rejection of nomination, voting on the polling day, declaration of results, d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document