This writ appeal is against the order dated

10.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.17450/2022 (LB-ELE) by

which while allowing the writ petition, learned Single Judge

directed the third respondent -Executive Officer and

Designated Officer to receive the nomination papers of the

respondent No.1 herein and has further directed that if the

nomination papers are submitted by 11.00 a.m. on

14.08.2023, scrutiny to be conducted between 12.00 noon

to 12.20 p.m. and to proceed with the election on

16.08.2023 at 11.00 a.m.

The above writ petition is filed by the

respondent No.1 herein contending inter alia that he is an

elected representative of Kowdle Grama Panchayat- the

respondent No.4 herein. That pursuant to a Notification

dated 14.06.2023 issued by respondent No.2- Deputy

Commissioner, the respondent No.3 was appointed as a

designated officer to conduct the election for the post of

Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. A notice of the meeting was

- 4 -

issued on 24.07.2023 to conduct the election. The

calendar of events was issued indicating the date of

election as 07.08.2023. In the said notification time for

submitting of nominations was fixed between 10.00 a.m.

and 11.00 a.m. of the said date, at the Office of Village

Panchayath. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was

scheduled between 1.00 p.m. to 1.15 pm.. Withdrawal of

the nomination was scheduled between 1.15 p.m. 1.25

p.m. and the election was held to be thereafter.

The

grievance

of

the

respondent

No.1

/petitioner is that though on 07.08.2023 he went to the

Panchayath Office at about 10.30 a.m. to submit his

nomination papers as there was huge crowd in front of

Village Panchayath, he was prevented from entering the

office and that he was finally able to submit his nomination

papers at 10.50 a.m., which was however refused to be

received by the respondent No.3 designated officer on the

grounds of delay.

It

is

further

contended

that

subsequent to rejection of nomination, meeting could not

- 5 -

be held on the same day and was adjourned to

16.08.2023 for want of quorum. That since the meeting is

adjourned, the respondent No.1/petitioner sought for

direction to the respondent-authorities to receive his

nomination papers to contest the election. That the

alternate remedy by nature of election petition is not an

efficacious remedy. Hence, filed the writ petition.

The writ petition is resisted by the State on its

maintainability as the process of election having already

been commenced, no order could be passed that would

impinge upon the election process. That the alternate

remedy being available under the statute invocation of

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the

constitution of India was improper. It was also contended

that even if the election is postponed the law warrants

that the process has to be re-started from where it was

stopped.

- 6 -

Learned Single Judge considering the factual

aspects of the matter opined that since the election which

was to be held on 07.08.2023 was not held for lack of

quorum and was adjourned to 16.08.2023 without any

reasons while proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 53 of

the Gram Swaraj Act requires it to be held on the very

next day, there would not be any impediment in accepting

the nomination papers of the respondent No.1. That

accepting the nomination of respondent No.1/petitioner

will not in any way delay the election beyond 16.08.2023,

as it only needs to be scrutinized for the purpose of

acceptance or not and that would not in any way delay or

interdict the election to take place on 16.08.2023 at 11.00

a.m. On these reasoning learned Single Judge allowed the

writ petition by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeal.

6.

Heard Sri. D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior

counsel appearing for Sri. Showri, H.R, learned advocate

- 7 -

for appellants, Sri. Kashinath J.D, learned advocate for

respondent No.1 Sri. H.V.Manjunath, learned Principal

Government Advocate for respondent No.2 and peruse