J.S. Khehar, CJ: Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing W.P. No.36337 of 2010, wherein, he assailed a notification issued by the State Election Commission dated 08.11.2010 ("Annexure-A", to the instant writ appeal). Through the aforesaid notification, the State Election Commission had earmarked constituencies category-wise for purposes of reservation. The reservation made were not only for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes, but also for Women. The remaining constituencies were to be filled up without any reservation. The claim of respondent No.1 before this Court was, that the reservation contemplated under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Panchayat Raj Act'), read with the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Reservation of Seats in Taluk Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats by Rotation) Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Reservation by Rotation Rules, 1998), have to be in consonance with the mandate of reservation contained in Article 243D of the Constitution of India. The pointed submission at the hands of respondent No.1, during the course of writ proceedings was, that the "rotation" in the matter of "reservation" contemplated under the aforesaid provisions had not been given effect to, through the impugned notification dated 08.11.2010.

2. W.P. No.36337 of 2010 came to be disposed of by an order dated 25.1.1.2010. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge arrived at the conclusion, that the notification depicting reservations was not sustainable, in terms of the mandate of Section 162 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It was sought to be contended, that the reservation contemplated through the impugned notification had merely provided for "reservation", by alternating between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and not in terms of the mandate of Section 162(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act, by "rotation" amongst all the reserved categories.

3. Through the instant writ appeal, the Karnataka State Election Commission has impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2010, disposing of W.P. No.36337/10 (and other connected writ petitions).

4. First and the foremost, during the course of hearing, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge was not maintainable, and as such, should not have been entertained for adjudication on merits by the learned Single Judge. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, learned Counsel for the appellant placed emphatic reliance on Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. Article 243-O aforementioned, is extracted hereunder:

"Article 243-O. 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 or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243K, 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 any Law made by the Legislature of a State."

Based on the aforesaid provision, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, that there is a complete bar to interference at the hands of Courts, in electoral matters, under Articles 243-O of the Constitution of India, and as such, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to render the impugned judgment dated 25.11.2010, by setting aside, the determination of the appellant, in "reserving particular constituencies for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, in the upcoming Panchayat elections.

5. While repudiating the. contention advanced at the hands of the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, that the simple prayer m