The existence of an alternative remedy precludes the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the election to the Standing Committee of the Respondent No.5 Panchayat conducted on 05.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and void;

ii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records relating to the election to the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Respondent No.5 Panchayat conducted on 08.01.2026 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and void.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to conduct fresh elections to the Standing Committee of theRespondent No.5 Panchayat, permitting participation only of those members who have submitted valid nomination papers before the Respondent No.4 Returning Officer within the prescribed time, and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 , Exhibit P3 and P4 Guidelines issued by the Respondent No.1 State Election Commission;

iv. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to issue a fresh notice under Section 4 (1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Standing Committee) Rules, 2000 and thereafter conduct fresh election to the post of Chairman of the Standing Committee.

v. To dispense off with translation of vernacular documents to English;

vi. Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice; "

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against the election conducted to the Standing Committee of the respondent No.5 Panchayat.

3. According to the petitioner, the Standing Committee Election is unsustainable and to be interfered by this Court, because the nomination paper was accepted by an officer who is not competent. The petitioner relying the judgment of this Court in Beena Kaniyankunnel & Anr. v. Kerala State Election Commission, [2012 SCC OnLine Ker.

31582] .

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition. According to the Standing Counsel, the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy by filing a suit before the civil court against the election. In such circumstances, this Court may not entertain the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the civil suit is not an efficacious remedy and in this case, the only aspect that is to be looked into is whether the person who accepted the nomination is a competent person or not.

7. When an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court need not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court considered this point in detail after considering the decision of the Apex Court also in Mohankumar K. v. Union or India [2025(4) KHC 450] . The relevant paragraphs of the same are extracted hereunder;

“8. This Court in Controller of Examination, Kannur and another v. Sreya N [2021(5) KHC 537] considered the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of the District Consumer Forum, when the Consumer Protection Act provides a hierarchy of forums, for the aggrieved parties to challenge such orders, and when the said Act is a complete code in itself. Thereafter, in