The judgment underscores the significance of adhering to statutory limitations and pursuing alternative legal remedies for challenging election disputes, while also emphasizing the requirement of public interest in claims seeking the removal of elected officials from office.

JUDGMENT

Krishna S. Dixit, J. - Petitioner an elected member of the 5th respondent- Grama Panchayat is knocking at the doors of writ court essentially for ousting the 6th respondent from the office of adhyaksha of the said Panchayat on the grounds that she does not belong to a community for which the political reservation is provided for the said office. She complains that the 'social status certificate' obtained at the hands of 3rd respondent-Tahsildar is illegal and she should be declared to be duly elected in the stead of said respondent.

2. The principal prayers as scripted in the writ petition assuming particular importance for adjudication are reproduced below:

'a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash the Caste Certificate issued by respondent No.3 dated 04-02-2021 in No.JaTHI(CHU)CR/09/20-21 as per annexure-C and also the resolution of respondent No.5 Village Panchayat in so far election of respondent No.6 as an adhyaksha of respondent No.5 Village Panchayat dated 10-02-2021 as per annexure-G in so far as it relates to the election of respondent No.6;

b) Issue a writ in the nature of quo-warranto, by restraining the respondent No.6 to continue in the office of the adhyaksha of respondent No.5 Village Panchayat as she usurped the office despite ineligible to hold the office, as she suffered with inherent lack of ineligibility to hold the office under the law;

c) Consequently, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.4 Retuning Officer to declare the petitioner as elected as adhyaksha of respondent No.5 Village Panchayat;

3. after service of notice respondents have entered appearance through their advocates. The respondent nos. 1 & 3 being represented by learned aGa have filed a brief Statement of Objections resisting the writ petition. all the advocates make submission opposing the writ petition principally on the ground that, the prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Caste Certificate at annexure-C and Writ of Quo Warranto for ousting the 6th respondent from the office of adhyaksha are misconceived. They also state that the prayer for Writ of Mandamus to the 4th respondent-Returning Officer to declare the petitioner as elected as adhyaksha of respondent No.5-Village Panchayat' is also equally misconceived.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) Both the petitioner and the 6th respondent have been the elected members of the 5th respondent-Grama Panchayat from the reserved constituencies. The office of adhyaksha in the Panchayat is reserved for a person belonging to BCM-a (Woman). The 6th respondent came to be elected to this office and the petitioner happens to be defeated and therefore, disappointed aspirant for the same. These facts are not in dispute.

(b) The first contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent does not belong to the community for which the office of the adhyaksha is reserved, is bit difficult to countenance inasmuch as admittedly there is a Caste Certificate dated 04.02.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar at annexure-C. It was open to the petitioner to lay a challenge thereto by filing appeal u/s.4(D) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of appointment, etc.,) act, 1990. Why this alternate and equally efficacious remedy provided by the statute is not availed by her remains inscrutable. Ordinarily, availability of such a remedy disentitles a litigant to the grant of a Writ of Certiorari as held by the apex Court in NEYVELY LIGNITE CORPORaTION LIMITED V. SPECIaL TaHSILDaR aND OTHERS (LaND aCQUISITION) aIR 1995 SC 1004(1).

(c) Petitioner in substance is calling in question the election of 6th respondent to the office of adhyaksha on the ground that she has obtained a false Caste Certificate. It has been consistently held by this Co