W.P.No.14031 of 2006 is filed praying for a writ of quo warranto declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not declaring the 4th respondent of being MPTC member of the Naidupet Mandal as void as per the provisions of Section 156 r/w Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, void, inoperative and accordingly, set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.

2. W.P.No.14052 of 2006 is filed praying for a writ of quo warranto declaring the inaction of the 151 respondent in not declaring the 4th respondent of being MPTC member of the Naidupet Mandal as void as per the provisions of Section 156 r/w. Section 18 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as illegal, void, inoperative and accordingly, set aside the same and pass such other suitable orders.

3. The ground raised in both the writ petitions is that the 4th respondent is a member of the Agricultural Market Committee, Naidupet Mandal and it is a clear disqualification.

4. Sri S. Chakrapani, the learned counsel representing the petitioners in both the writ petitions would contend that the disqualification is attracted from the material placed before this Court and hence, a writ of quo-warranto can be maintained despite the fact that an alternative remedy by way of an election petition is available. He would further contend that though the appeals were preferred, the appellate authority had not considered and dispose of the appeals and in such circumstances, the petitioners are left with no other option except to approach this Court.

5. It is needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their appellate remedies and it is made clear that this order, which is being made by this Court, would not come in the way of the appellate authority in considering the appeals in accordance with law. It may be, that the petitioners challenge in regard to certain disqualifications as specified by the statutory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.ln Bhairulal Chunilal v. State of Bombay, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, while dealing with a similar question, held as hereunder.

If, therefore, the property and rights of the Municipality did not vest in Government under SA and the term of office of the outgoing councilors was extended, the Collector had every authority under the rules to fix a date for election which he did by his order dated 26-12-1952. In fact Mr. Kotwal does not challenge the order issued by the Collector. He does not dispute that the Collector was within his rights in ordering a general election to be held. His whole grievance is that in the course of the election illegalities were practised which vitiated the whole election and which made it liable to be set aside. If the term of office of the outgoing councilors was extended, there was nothing to prevent these councilors functioning as the Municipality for the purposes of the election proceedings and the only irregularity or illegality we have to consider is the fact that there was not a properly elected President who could perform the function assigned to him under the rules.

The Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act provides a machinery for challenging elections and that machinery is to be found in S.15 of the Act. It lays down the grounds on which an election can be challenged, the tribunal that has to decide it and the procedure that has got to be followed, and it is important to note that under S.15 (5) an election cannot be set aside merely on the ground of an irregularity or informality not corruptly caused. Mr. Kotwal concedes that if he was challenging the election of a councilor, he would not succeed by reason of the provision of the law but his contention is that the election that took place was not an election at all, it was a sham election, and the Court can give him relief by issuing a writ of quo warranto. It is well settled that where you have statutory provisions dealing with the conduct of an election, the writ of quo warrant