The existence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy, particularly in the election field, bars the exercise of the writ jurisdiction without first resorting to the remedy by way of an election petition.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The self-imposed bar against the exercise of the writ jurisdiction where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, particularly in the election field, is the spinal question in this reference. More pointedly at issue is the discordance of views in Gurtej Singh V/s. Punjab State, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 389, and Harkewal Singh Ramana V/s. Municipal Committee, Faridkot C.W.P. No. 3894 of 1981, decided on 14th September, 1981.

2. The factual matrix is not in dispute and lies in a narrow compass. The two writ petitioners along with fifteen others were elected to the Municipal Committee, Mansa, for a period of five years in municipal elections held in the year 1979. Two women members were co-opted as members of the Committee thereby completing the strength of the Committee which was nineteen. Shri Atma Singh was elected as President of the Society for a period of five years. However, the term of senior Vice-President and junior Vice-President under the election rules is one year only. This was to expire on February 10, 1981. No meeting of the Committee was, however, called by the President for electing persons to the aforesaid two offices. Accordingly respondents Nos. 5, 6 and seven other members of the Committee who are alleged to belong to one group requisitioned a meeting, in writing, under Section 25(2) of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter called the Act ), for October 2, 1981. A meeting so convened is termed as special meeting and the quorum for such meeting is provided by sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the Act. If the quorum is not present then the Chairman of the meeting has to adjourn the meeting to some other day. The writ petitioners themselves rely on the provisions of Sections 25 and 27 of the Act and rule 47 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the Rules).

3. It is the case of the writ petitioners that despite the requisition aforesaid, no meeting was called by the President and, therefore six out of nine requisitionists, on November 9, 1981 issued a notice under rule 47 of the Rules for holding the meeting for the purpose of electing the senior Vice-President and junior Vice-President, for November 12, 1981 at 10 A.M. within the precincts of the Municipal Committee. Accordingly the requisitionists met for holding a meeting on the date and time above said, but in the said meeting only nine out of nineteen members were present and since the President S. Atma Singh was absent, the requisitionists elected Nichhattar Singh to be the Chairman of the meeting. Since the requisite quorum of one-half of the members of the Committee was not present, the resolution, annexure P/1, was passed adjourning the meeting to be held on the same day at 12 noon. On the said date the requisitionists again held the meeting and passed the resolution, annexure P/2, whereby respondent No. 5, Amar Nath was elected as the senior Vice-President and respondent No. 6 Kashmiri Lal was elected as the junior Vice-President of the Municipal Committee.

4. The writ petitioners seek to challenge the resolution, annexure P/1 and the election of respondents Nos. 5 and 6, primarily on the alleged infraction of the provisions of Ss.25 and 27 of the Act and rule 47 of the Rules. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 apart from controverting the averments in the writ petition, a specific preliminary objection has been taken that an efficacious statutory remedy by way of an election petition is in terms provided by the Punjab Municipal Act and the Rules. It is the stand that the election petition is an exclusive remedy and in any case there is no room for the High Court to exercise its powers under Art.226 of the Constitution of India unless resort is first made to the said remedy. Particular reliance in this context was placed on Harkewal Singh Ramana s case (supra), a copy of the judgment whereof was annexed as R-5/1.

5. At the motion stage itself, the preliminary obj