( 1 ) THE petitioner herein is a candidate for the post of Member, Pedakurapadu Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency. She and respondents 4 and 5 herein filed nomination papers. The nomination papers filed by respondents 4 and 5 were accompanied by demand drafts of the prescribed amount drawn on Canara Bank. The third respondent purported to have entertained a doubt as to whether such a deposit is valid one and referred the matter to the first respondent herein for his opinion. However, according to the petitioner, without waiting for the opinion of the first respondent, the third respondent accepted the nomination of respondents 4 and 5 herein.

( 2 ) MR. T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Members of Mandal Parishad and Members of Zilla Parishad) Rules, 1994. Such deposit being not a valid deposit, the nominations of respondents 4 and 5 could not have been accepted and in that view of the matter no election is required to be held. In a situation of this nature, contends the learned counsel, writ petition will be maintainable. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in K. Venkateswarlu v. Govt. of A. P. (1995) 3 ALT 217 : (1995 0 AIHC 6427 ). As two of us have doubted the correctness of the said decision, the matter has been referred to Full Bench.

( 3 ) MR. Suryakaran Reddy vehemently submits that in this writ petition no disputed question of fact arises for consideration. In a situation of this nature, this Court should not ask the petitioner herein to take recourse to alternative remedy as provided for under S. 233 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read with Rule 12 (d) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995. In support of the said contention, strong reliance has been placed on the decisions of Apex Court in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commissioner, (1996) 3 SCC 416 : (AIR 1996 SC 1595 ). In this writ petition, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4 wherein, inter alia, it has been contended that having regard to the fact that the date of poll has been fixed by reason of a notification issued by the first respondent herein as 12-7-2001 and as the election process has already commenced, this court should not entertain writ petition keeping in view the provisions of Art. 243-O of the Constitution of India. It has been contended that the acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper cannot be questioned by way of writ petition in the midst of election process and in any event the instructions given by the first respondent herein cannot be said to be conclusive. The respondent would contend that having regard to the fact that Rule 7 requires interpretation by a Court, this Court should not entertain a writ application.

( 4 ) THERE cannot be any doubt whatsoever, as has been held by the Apex Court in Hari Vishnu (AIR 1955 SC 233) as also Sangram Singh (AIR 1955 SC 425) (supra), that by reason of a Central or State Act, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken away. The Court exercises a rule of self restraint in such matters having regard to the fact as to whether the extraordinary jurisdiction should be exercised in the fact situation obtaining in each case.

( 5 ) IT has not been disputed that exercise of this Court s jurisdiction is discretionary. Whether in a case of this nature, the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction or not will depend upon the fact situation of each case. But while doing so, the Court has to app