K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Kerala State Election Commission is aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge directing the State Election Commission to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 in exercise of the powers under S.34(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act within a period of three days of receipt of the order.

2. Writ Petition was preferred seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 intimation dated 7.9.2005 given by the returning officer stating that the nomination submitted by the Writ Petitioner was rejected since on scrutiny it was found that the petitioner was indebted to Mundoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited and hence disqualified to contest for election. Petitioner also sought for a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to accept his nomination for contesting as a candidate from Ward No.14 of Munddor Grama Panchayat and to include his name in the ballot papers in the election to be held on 26.9.2005.

3. Sri Murali Purushothaman, counsel appearing for the State Election Commission, contended that the learned single Judge was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition in view of the specific bar contained in Art.243-O(b) of the Constitution of India. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner has got an effective alternate remedy. Counsel submitted on rejection of nomination paper after scrutiny, the remedy open to the petitioner was to move the Election Tribunal, the Munsiff's Court, under S.88(a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. Counsel also submitted that learned single Judge was also not justified in invoking S.34(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act in directing the State Election Commission to consider the objection raised by the petitioner against the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper by the Returning Officer.

4. Sri P.N. Ravindran, counsel appearing for the writ petitioner on the other hand contended that learned single Judge was justified in directing the State Election Commission to examine the question whether the Returning Officer has improperly rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Counsel submitted that S.34(1) deals with disqualification of candidates and if there is any dispute as to whether a candidate has been subjected to any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-s.(1), that question shall be referred for the decision of the State Election Commission and the decision of the State Election Commission shall be final. Counsel submitted on the basis of the direction of the learned single Judge State Election Commission has already passed an order holding that Returning Officer went wrong in rejecting the nomination. Since State Election Commission has already answered the reference and held that no money was due either to the Government or to the Panchayat from the petitioner, disqualification under S-34 (1) of the Act was not attracted. Counsel submitted that State Election Commission has rightly answered the reference under S.34 (2) of the Act.

5. We may point out at the very outset, that teamed single Judge was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition challenging the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner at the time of scrutiny. Conduct of election is dealt with in Chapter IX of the Panchayat Raj Act. S.55 deals with scrutiny of nominations. Sub-s.(2) of S.55 states that the returning officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the grounds stipulated therein. Sub-s.(8) of S.55 states that immediately after all nomination papers have been scrutinized and decisions accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded, the returning officer shall prepare a list of validly nominated candidates and affix it on his notice board. R.10 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules stipulates that immediately af