The High Court has the jurisdiction to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in election disputes relating to local bodies, even if an alternative remedy by way of an election petition is available, in exceptional circumstances, such as mala fide rejection of nomination papers.

1. The present petition has been filed challenging the election held to the Gram Panchayat Mothanwala, Block Guru Har Sahai, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.The facts of the case relevant to its disposal are as under :

2. Vide an election programme issued by the competent authority, applications were invited on 21/01/1993 for nomination of candidates for election to the office of Sarpanch and four Panches. The nominations were to be followed by scrutiny of the papers to be held at 4 p.m. on the same day and the polling, if necessary, was to be held on 22/01/1993. It appears that the petitioners as also six other persons, including respondent No. 5 (Kishan Singh) filed their nomination papers for election to the office of Sarpanch, whereas as many as 22 candidates filed their nomination papers for the election to the office of Panch. It has been averred that all the candidates for both the offices fulfilled the requisite qualifications and were entitled to fight the election. It appears, however, that during the course of scrutiny of the nomination paper by Mohinder Singh, Presiding Officer, respondent No. 4, the papers of all the candidates for the office of Sarpanch other than those of Kishan Singh, respondent No. 5 and the nomination papers of 19 of the 22 candidates who intended contesting for the office of Panch except those of respondents Nos. 6 to 8 i.e. Satpal Singh, Gurmeet Singh and Pritam Kaur were rejected with the result that respondent No. 5 was unanimously elected as Sarpanch and respondents Nos. 6 to 8 were also similarly elected as Panches leaving one vacancy in the number of Panches to be elected. It has been averred that the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioner as well as those of the others for no reasons whatsoever was a mala fide exercise of power on the part of the Presiding Officer, respondent No. 4 as all the persons elected belonged to one family; that is Kishan Singh was elected as Sarpanch, whereas his son Gurmet Singh, wife Smt. Pritam Kaur and brother-in-law Sat Pal Singh were elected as Panches. In elaboration, it has also been stated that even the nomination paper of one Jagroop Singh son of Jassa Singh who was a candidate for the office of Sarpanch and a member of the outgoing Panchayat had also been rejected and no reasons had been recorded for doing so.

3. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 2/02/1993 and as an interim measure the result of the election held in respect of the Gram Panchayat was directed to be stayed. The said stay order is still in operation.

4. In response to the writ petition, two written statements-one on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and second on behalf of respondent No. 5 i.e. Kishan Singh, the Sarpanch elect, have been filed. The common stand in both the replies is that a writ petition challenging the election held was not competent as an alternative remedy by way of an election petition was available under Sec. 13-B of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the Act). In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. l to 4 the reasons for the rejection of the nomination papers, except those of respondents Nos. 5 to 8, have been spelt out and the averment in para No. 4 is "that the nomination papers were rejected by the returning officer as he did not find the same to be in order.

" On the question of relationship inter se between the sarpanch and the panches it has been stated "it is immaterial whether the elected candidates were relatives to each other. When the nomination papers of other candidates were not found in order their there was no option with the returning officer except to declare the result of the election."

A similar reply has been given in para 5 wherein it has been stated "it is submitted that the nomination papers of the other candidates were rejected on solid grounds under the rules. Otherwise also, this fact is now a matter of record." In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 5, an