V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. This judgment might strike a discordant note in the realm of election law as far as this Court is concerned even though the peculiar facts unfolded in the case warrant the present conclusion. The first respondent Returning Officer published Ext. P1 list of nominations under Rule 9 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' only). The list contained the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 who had submitted nominations in the election to Ward No. IX of the Pallickal Grama Panchayat. The nomination papers underwent a scrutiny and the Returning Officer on 15/10/2015 published Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated under Rule 10 of the Rules. Only the names of the petitioner and the third respondent found a place in the list and the nominations put in by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were rejected in the scrutiny. The petitioner was surprised when he came across Ext. P3 order issued by the Returning Officer on 16/10/2015 styled as an erratum to Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated. The erratum order roped in respondent Nos. 4 and 5 also in the poll fray after suo motu reviewing the earlier proceedings rejecting their nominations during scrutiny. The order reflected that the Returning Officer realised the rejection to be bad in the wake of the legal advice and the handbook of the first respondent State Election Commission.

2. It appears that the Returning Officer had earlier rejected the nominations of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the premise that one candidate cannot propose another in the same election. The Returning Officer proceeded on the basis that such a conclusion was bad in law in the light of the legal advice and handbook aforesaid and hence the necessity for Ext. P3 erratum order. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext. P4 representation to the first respondent seeking to annul Ext. P3 erratum order and to proceed with the election on the basis of Ext. P2 list. The inaction on the part of the first respondent had compelled the petitioner to file this writ petition for the same reliefs invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The first respondent contended that there is a constitutional bar to entertain the writ petition and that the remedy of the petitioner is by way of an election petition. The fourth respondent contended that the Returning Officer had only corrected his mistake on realising that one candidate could as well propose another in the election.

3. I heard Mr. K. Shaj, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Murali 2015 (5) KHC Santhosh v. State Election Commission (V. Chitambaresh, J.) 601 Purushothaman, Standing Counsel on behalf of the Election Commission and Mr. K. Sasikumar, Advocate on behalf of the fourth respondent.

4. The Returning Officer after the last day and time fixed for the receipt of nomination papers had published Ext. P1 list of nominations received in Form No. 3 as envisaged in Rule 9 of the Rules. The Returning Officer immediately after the scrutiny of the nomination papers were over had also prepared Ext. P2 list of candidates found legally nominated in Form No. 4 as per Rule 10 of the Rules. This was in accord with Section 55(8) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only) dealing with the scrutiny of the nominations and the same is extracted hereunder:

"(8) Immediately after all the nomination papers have been scrutinised 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."

The next step in 'the progress of the election proceedings' was the withdrawal of candidature under Section 56 of the Act followed by the publication of list of contesting candidates under Section 57 of the Act.

5. Surprisingly the Returning Officer retraced his steps by suo motu reviewing his earlier decision on the rejection of th