The remedy of obtaining a direction, order or Writ in the nature of Quo-warrano provided under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never be displaced by a remedy provided by a Statute passed, by Parliament or State legislature which themselves are creations of that Constitution.

Headnote:
The Court held that a Councillor of Zilla Parishad who could have challenged the validity of the election of a President under the provisions of section 45(4) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 (for short Zilla Parishad Act) but has failed to do so within the prescribed time limit for want of knowledge of the alleged disqualification and/or a person who could not have challenged the validity of the election of the President of Zilla Parishad under the above referred provision could seek a writ in the nature of Quo-Warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the remedy of seeking such a writ stands displaced on account of the alternative remedy contained in Zilla Parishad Act for challenging the validity of the ejection of the President of Zilla Parishad.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 as well as respondents Nos. 1 and 2, amongst others, were elected as Councillors of Zilla Parishad, Akola from different constituencies in May-June 1979. Respondent No. 3 is the Collector, Akola who presided over an election meeting of Councillors called under the provisions of section 45 of the Zilla Parishad Act on 20-6-1979 for election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Akola. Respondent No. 4 is Commissioner of Nagpur Division of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5 is one of the five Block Co-operative Agricultural Sale Purchase Societies covering the territory of Akola district. Respondent No. 5 operates within the jurisdiction of Telhara Block.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the resignation of the Chairman of respondent No. 5 Co-operative Society was tendered by respondent No. 1 to the Vice Chairman on 19-6-1979. The Court also held that the resignation took effect from the moment it was tendered and that there was no need for its acceptance. The Court further held that respondent No. 1 was not legally qualified to hold the office or to remain in the office of President Zilla Parishad, Akola, because of contravention of some Constitutional or statutory provision.
Issues: 1. Whether a Councillor of Zilla Parishad who could have challenged the validity of the election of a President under the provisions of section 45(4) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 (for short Zilla Parishad Act) but has failed to do so within the prescribed time limit for want of knowledge of the alleged disqualification and/or a person who could not have challenged the validity of the election of the President of Zilla Parishad under the above referred provision could seek a writ in the nature of Quo-Warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the remedy of seeking such a writ stands displaced on account of the alternative remedy contained in Zilla Parishad Act for challenging the validity of the ejection of the President of Zilla Parishad? 2. If the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short Co-operative Societies Act), Rules framed thereunder and Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society are silent about the manner and circumstances in which the office-bearer of the said Co-operative Society can tender his resignation, does the resignation become operative, the moment it is tendered or only after due acceptance by the body electing the office-bearer? 3. If a Statute (section 42 of Zilla Parishad Act) provides a disqualification (being Chairman of a Co-operative Society) for being elected to a post (President, Zilla Parishad) and if the Statute further provides a specific remedy for challenging the election of the disqualified person to that post [section 45(4), Zilla Parishad Act] without further providing that the disqualification is not only for eligibility for being elected as President of Zilla Parishad but also for (being) in that post, i. e. for continuing in that post, does that initially disqualified person continue to hold that post in contravention of law even after the remedy for challenging his election under the provisions of Zilla Parishad Act stands barred not having been pursued within the prescribed time limit?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the remedy of obtaining a direction, order or Writ in the nature of Quo-warrano provided under Article 226 of Constitution of India can never be displaced by a remedy provided by a Statute passed, by Parliament or State legislature which themselves are creations of that Constitution. The Court also held that the existence of an effective remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court but it is only one of the circumstances that the Court should take into consideration in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court further held that a resignation given by the Chairman of Co-operative Society takes effect, the moment it is tendered.
Final Decision: Petition dismissed.

Padhye R.S., JJ.-Three important questions are involved for decision in this case (1) Whether a Councillor of Zilla Parishad who could have challenged the validity of the election of a President under the provisions of section 45(4) of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samities Act, 1961 (for short Zilla Parishad Act) but has failed to do so within the prescribed time limit for want of knowledge of the alleged disqualification and/or a person who could not have challenged the validity of the election of the President of Zilla Parishad under the above referred provision could seek a writ in the nature of Quo-Warranto under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or whether the remedy of seeking such a writ stands displaced on account of the alter native remedy contained in Zilla Parishad Act for challenging the validity of the ejection of the President of Zilla Parishad? (2) If the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short Co-operative Societies Act), Rules framed thereunder and Bye-laws of a Co-operative Society are silent about the manner and circumstances in which the office-bearer of the said Co-operative Society can tender his resignation, does the resignation become operative, the moment it is tendered or only after due acceptance by the body electing the office-bearer? (3) If a Statute (section 42 of Zilla Parishad Act) provides a disqualification (being Chairman of a Co-operative Society) for being elected to a post (President, Zilla Parishad) and if the Statute further provides a specific remedy for challenging the election of the disqualified person to that post [section 45(4), Zilla Parishad Act] without further providing that the disqualification is not only for eligibility for being elected as President of Zilla Parishad but also for (being) in that post, i. e. for continuing in that post, does that initially disqualified person continue to hold that post in contravention of law even after the remedy for challenging his election under the provisions of Zilla Parishad Act stands barred not having been pursued within the prescribed time limit? (Emphasis supplied by us)

2. A brief reference to the facts as alleged by the petitioners and denied

or admitted by respondent will be necessary before embarking upon an enquiry for answering the above referred questions. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 as well as respondents Nos. 1 and 2, amongst others, were elected as Councillors of Zilla Parishad, Akola from different constituencies in May-June 1979. Respondent No. 3 is the Collector, Akola who presided over an election meeting of Councillors called under the provisions of section 45 of the Zilla Parishad Act on 20-6-1979 for election of President and Vice-President of Zilla Parishad, Akola. Respondent No. 4 is Commissioner of Nagpur Division of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 5 is one of the five Block Co-operative Agricultural Sale Purchase Societies covering the territory of Akola district. Respondent No. 5 operates within the jurisdiction of Telhara Block. Initially petitioner No. 3 and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filled in nominations for contesting the post of President, Zilla Parishad but after acceptance of their nomination papers respondent No. 2 withdrew, leaving petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 1 to have a straight contest for the post of President of Zilla Parishad, Akola. It may be pointed out at this stage that none of the Councillors filed any objection to any of the nomination papers for the post of President, Zilla Parishad, Akola. Respondent No. I having secured 28 votes against 25 votes polled by petitioner No. 3, was declared duly elected as President of Zilla Parishad, Akola. Petitioner No. 2 had nothing to do with the election to the post of President, Zilla Parishad, Akola but claims to be interested by virtue of the fact that he was a voter in the general election of Councillors of Zilla Parishad held in May-June 1979 and referred to above.

3. After about more

Click Here to Read the rest of this document