DANDA RAJESHWARI Vs. BODAVULA HANUMAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question raised in this case is : whether the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned order to file the Election Petition within three weeks from the date of disposal of the writ petition and after filing of the petition to dispose of the same, without going into the question of limitation is valid in law The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the impugned order dated June 26, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 1995 and batch observed as follows :

(2.) Shri B. Nageshwara Rao, counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule 3 of the A. P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunal) in respect of Gram Panchayat and Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishad Rules, 1995 (for short, the 'Rules') contended that the rules contemplates filing of an Election Petition within 30 days from the date of declaration of the result of the election. It reads as under:

(3.) The remedy is statutory remedy and limitation is one of the candidates to entertain election petition. By judicial order the limitation cannot be nullified. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. , (1996) 4 SCALE 317 : (1996 AIR SCW 2398). We find no force in his contention. It is not his case that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition against the election of a Sarpanch and declaration of the result of the election of a Sarpanch. etc. The High Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution declined to interfere in the election disputes since alternative remedy of filing election petition and adjudication has been provided in the relevant statutory rules. Far from saving that the High Court has no jurisdiction, High Court exercised self restraint in exercise of the power under Article 226 and directed the parties to avail of alternative remedy. In this case, admittedly, the elections of Sarpanch was held and result was declared on June 24, 1995 and the writ petition was filed on June 25, 1995. Power of the Government on the process of electoral rolls was challenged in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition in question is also one of such writ petitions. Under the circumstances, the High Court though it is expedient that since elections were already held, the disputed questions of facts would be canvassed in an election petition as provided in Rule 3 of the Rules, the High Court rightly declined to investigate into disputed question of facts and refused to go into the question relegating the parties to pursue the remedy of election dispute. In view of this the High Court has rightly directed filing of the election petition within three weeks from the date of disposal of the writ petition and further directed the Tribunal not to go in the question of limitation and instead decide the matter on merits. This Court in Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. s case (1996 AIR SCW 2398 at P. 2400) held as under :