PATEL KHEMABHAI HARGOVANDAS Vs. JANTRAL VILLAGE PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) * * * *

(2.) Before I proceed to examine the grounds on which the validity of the election of the members to various panchayats is called in question I will first dispose of a preliminary objection raised by the respondents against the maintainability of these petitions. Mr. C:-. T. Daru learned advocate who appeared for some of the respondents in Special Civil Applications Nos. 492 506 and 507 of 1970 and Mr. B. J. Shelat learned Assistant Government Pleader who appeared for the Mamlatdar and Taluka Development Officer who are respondents in each of these petitions urged that sec. 24 of the Act provides efficacious alternative remedy and therefore the High Court should not entertain a petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. Mr. Daru made it specifically clear that it was not his submission that a Writ Petition challenging the validity of an election would not lie; but the submission was that when the Statute the High Court ordinarily does not entertain a petition for a writ of quo warranto provides for an alternative efficacious remedy. It was urged that the ground on which the validity of election is called in question by the petitioners in each of these petitions can as well furnish a ground on which election petition may be made to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who has been constituted a Tribunal to determine the validity of election which may be held under the provisions of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. It was therefore urged that if a special Tribunal has been set up under the Gujarat Panchayats Act and if the Tribunal is competent to decide the question of validity of election of the members to the Gram Panchayat and is authorised to declare some other person elected to the Panchayat; and is also authorised to set aside the election then unless some convincing reasons are assigned for by-passing the Tribunal the High Court ordinarily would not entertain a petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. Mr. Daru frankly conceded that if there was any doubt about the jurisdiction of the he section Tribunal set up under rec. 24 to entertain election petition of the nature filed in this Court this Court may entertain petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election. But it was very vehemently urged that if there is no doubt about the jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal let up under sec. 24 to entertain the petition and to decide the validity of the electron and if the Tribunal has power either to confirm or amend the declared result or set aside the election then in the absence of very cogent and convincing reasons this Court should not in exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction entertain a petition under Art. 226 for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. If the Election Tribunal set up under sec. 24 of the Act would have jurisdiction to entertain a petition of the present petitioner in each of these petitions challenging the validity of election of all the members to the Panchayat obviously this Court would not entertain a petition invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of quo warranto unless very cogent and convincing reasons are assigned for by-passing the Tribunal If the election is to be held under the provisions of a particular Statute and the Statute itself sets up an Election Tribunal with authority to decide the validity of the election with power to confirm or amend the declared result of the election or with power to set aside the election ordinarily any person calling in question validity of the election must approach that Tribunal. For good and convincing reasons the High Court may entertain a petition for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. If no reasons are forthcoming the High Court would decline to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction vide Kanchanbha; Maneklal VI G.L.R. 200 However. in the same case Bhagwati J. (as he then was) speaking for the Division Bench has observed that there is no hard and fast rule that where there is an alternative remedy the Court should not entertain a petition under Art. 226 or refuse to grant relief to the petitioner. There is always a discretion vested in the Court to entertain the petition and grant relief to the petitioner nor with standing the existence of the alternative remedy. Whether in a given case the Court would exercise its discretion one way or the ether would depend upon the facts and circumstances of that particular case. Reference was also made to a recent decision of J. B. Mehta J. in Special Civil Application No. 594 of 1965 decided on 17 June 1970 in which the petition filed by a person whose nomination paper was rejected was dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner should have availed of the remedy before the statutory authority constituted under the Act. It would appear that where there is an alternative efficacious remedy the Court in the absence of cogent and convincing reasons would be slow to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution at the instance of the person who has by-passed the Tribunal constituted under the Act.

(3.) The important question however is:- whether sec. 24 provides an alterative efficacious remedy to the petitioner challenging election of all the elected members of the respective afore-mentioned Gram Panchayats. Secs. 24(1) and 24(1A) which are relevant for the purpose read as under :-