( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed on 13-11-195x by opposite parties 1 to 3 and a writ of prohibition directing opposite parties 1 to 3 not to proceed with the election petition No. 316 of 1952.-- Saling Ram Jaiswal v. Sheo Kumar.

( 2 ) THE facts which have given rise to this petition may be stated briefly.

( 3 ) THE first general elections under the Constitution of India were held in the district of allahabad in January 1952. The Sirathu-Manjhanpur constituency from which the applicants were seeking election in this district was a double-member constituency with a seat reserved for scheduled caste candidate. For the election. there were as many as nine candidates, viz. opposite parties 4 to 15. Sri Sheo Kumar Pandey and Sri Sukhi Ram Bhartiya were among the duly nominated candidates for the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. Both of them were standing on the Congress tickets. Sri Salig Ram Jaiswal and Shrimati Sushila Devi were set up as candidates on behalf of Kisan Mazdoor Praja Party.

( 4 ) ELECTION at the aforesaid constituency was held on 28-1-1952, and after the counting of votes petitioners 1 and 2 were declared elected on 9-2-1952. Thereafter Salig Ram Jaiswal, opposite party 4, presented an election petition challenging the election of the petitioners, before the election Commissioner of India, New Delhi. That election petition was sent for disposal to the allahabad Election Tribunal consisting of opposite parties 1 to 3 with opposite party 1 as chairman. One Ganga Prasad has also filed his nomination which was scrutinised and accepted by the returning Officer. He, however, withdrew his candidature subsequently and did not contest the election. The petition filed by opposite party 4 was objected to by the petitioners on the ground, inter alia, that inasmuch as the petitioners had failed to implead this Ganga Prasad as a party the petition was liable to be dismissed. This question was decided by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 13-11-1952. The Election Tribunal having held that it was unnecessary for opposite party 4 to implead Ganga Prasad, the petitioners have now come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 5 ) BEFORE considering the various points which have been raised in the case, reference may be made to the fact that it is conceded by both the parties that the Election Tribunal which is functioning in Allahabad is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. Article 324 of the Constitution vests, inter alia, the powers of appointing election tribunals for the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with elections to parliament and to the Legislatures of States in the Election Commission. Article 329 lays down that an election to the Union or State Legislature can be questioned only by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. The Act has laid down the constitution of the Election Tribunals to which petitions may be referred for disposal by the Election Commission to try the petitions. No provision in the constitution takes away the power of superintendence which this Court exercises under Article 227 or the power of issuing writs to an Election Tribunal once it has been constituted to hear a petition. It is unnecessary to dilate on this point further as it is the common case of both the parties that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against an Election Tribunal.

( 6 ) THE case of the petitioners is that even though Ganga Prasad withdrew his candidature on the date of scrutiny, he remained a duly nominated candidate and that it was not competent to the election Tribunal to hear the election petition without Ganga Prasad having been impleaded. The short question,