Where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri. Y. Soma Raju, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Viswanath Challa, Advocate appearing for Sri. S. Vivek Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. Shilpa, Advocate, appearing for Respondent No.6.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for Writ of Mandamus with respect to the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioner's complaint, dtd. 18/7/2022, as also for a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to take appropriate action on the Petitioner's complaint.

3. The prayer in the Writ Petition, is as follows:

".......pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the Petitioner Complaint dt. 18/07/2022 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 19(g) and consequently direct to the Respondents to consider the Petitioner Complaint dt. 18/07/2022 and take appropriate action against the Respondent No 6 in accordance with law and to pass........"

4. The Petitioner's complaint related to the election of the 6th Respondent for the post of Corporator of Ward No.27 in Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, in the elections conducted in the year 2020.

5. The Petitioner's case is that, the 6th Respondent was not eligible to contest the election, as criminal cases were pending against him, but without disclosing those cases he filed false affidavit and contested the election and was elected as Corporator.

6. Learned Counsel for the 6th Respondent submits that the 6th Respondent had no knowledge of the registration of those criminal which have already been closed. As such, there was no suppression of facts.

7. Learned Counsel for the 6th Respondent further submits that the complaint given by the Petitioner is not a statutory complaint for which direction cannot be given in the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the material on record.

9. The Petitioner is a voter and in affect is challenging the election of the 6th Respondent by filing the complaint before the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and the writ petition is filed for direction to those respondents to decide such complaint.

10. Sec. 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, ['Act'] provides as under:

"Presentation and Trial of Election Petition

71. (1) Election Petition: - [x x x] No election held under this Act shall be called in question except by an election petition which shall be presented in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) An Election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in clauses (i) and (ii) of Sec. 79 and Sec. 80 to the Election Tribunal by any candidate at such election or any voter, within two months from, but not earlier than the date of election of the returned candidate or if there are more than one returned candidate at the election and the dates of the election are different is the later of those two dates.

[Provided that the period from the date on which an election petition can be filed under this sub-sec. to the date of the constitution of an Election Tribunal under Sec. 75, shall be excluded for purpose of computing the period of two months under this subsection.]"

11. Thus, Sec. 71 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, provides for challenge to the election by an election petition to be presented in the manner prescribed. As per Sub-Sec. (2), the election can be challenged by any candidate at such election or even by a voter. The period of limitation and its computation is also prescribed for filing election petition by Sub-Sec. (2) read with the proviso.

12. It would be apt to refer the following judgments on the point of maintainability of a writ petition with respect to the challenge made to an election.

13. In K.K. Sh