( 1 ) ALL these appeals are by the contesting respondents in the writ petitions, whose elections as Pradhana or Upa-pradhana of respective Mandal Panchayats (for short 'the panchayats or the Panchayat') were set aside, with a direction to declare the results of the respective elections afresh, consequent upon quashing the nominations made to the panchayats, by the Adhyakshas of Zilla parishads, under Section 5 (3) of the karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 (referred as 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE main question to be decided is whether declaration of the result of an election to the office of Pradhana or Upa-pradhana can be set aside in a writ petition, without the aggrieved party resorting to an election petition as provided by the Act and the relevant Rules called 'the Karnataka mandal Panchayats (Election of Pradhana and Upa-pradhana) Rules, 1987 (for short as 'election Rules' ).

( 3 ) THE elections to panchayats were held in January, 1987. The panchayat stands constituted immediately on publication of the elected members numbering two-thirds of the membership of panchayat as per Section 5 (8) of the Act. Section 5 (3) of the Act, provides for nomination of two members belonging to Backward classes, in case, no member of the said class is elected as a member of the panchayat at the election. The Act also envisages the election of Pradhana and upa-pradhana, at the earliest, on the panchayat coming into existence and the first meeting of the panchayat has to be to elect the Pradhana. The first meeting is to be within four weeks of the constitution of the panchayat under Section 43.

( 4 ) IN these cases it is the assertion of some of the writ petitioners that, in many panchayats, the party in power in the State could not command majority of elected members and in these cases before us, there were equality of strength or the Congress had a marginal majority. Therefore, elections to the office of Pradhana and Upapradhana were not held, immediately, as envisaged by Sections 42 and 43 of the Act. The Adhyakshas of the respective Zilla parishads are alleged to belong to the Ruling party; therefore, through such Adhyakshas nominations were made to these panchayats purporting to be under Section 5 (3), resulting in upsetting the respective strength of parties in these panchayats. Thereafter, during third week of April 1987, meetings of the panchayat members were called to elect the Pradhana and Upa-pradhana. In all these cases, the persons declared as successful candidates, succeeded to the respective offices only by virtue of the votes cast by the nominated members and as such the results of these elections were materially affected by the participation of illegally nominated members.

( 5 ) IN the writ petitions, petitioners sought the quashing of these nominations as without jurisdiction and consequently sought the setting aside of the declarations of the results of the elections held to elect the Pradhana or upa-pradhana. The writ petitions having been allowed, the affected respondents in the writ petitions have filed these appeals.

( 6 ) IT was argued on behalf of the appellants, that - (I) the election held under a Statute can be challenged only as provided by the statute, in the forum created by it and therefore, writ jurisdiction is not available to set at naught the result of such an election; (II) The grounds and jurisdiction to set aside an election are entirely statutory, being incidental to the right to contest the election created by the said statute. (III) By virtue of Section 55 of the Act, the proceedings in which the nominated members participated will be valid and these 'nominated members' cease to be members only on the setting aside of the nominations by a competent court, Tribunal or authority. (IV) There has been delay in approaching this Court and therefore the writ jurisdiction should be denied to the petitioners. (V) In case t