BHAGIRATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this petition and the reasons for reference to a larger bench are stated in my referring order and need not be repeated. The referring order (omitted in these report--Ed ). may accordingly be treated as a part of this order.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the petition on the merits, I may first dispose of the preliminary objection on which great reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents. It is urged with force that the petitioner challenge the impugned order rejecting his nomination paper by an election petition and that this Court should for this reason decline relief to the petitioner on the writ side. According to the submission the alternative remedy provide by proceedings for election petition is equally adequate and efficacious and the petitioner should therefore not be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In support of this preliminary objection reliance has been placed on the following among other, decided case: Tek Chand v. Banwari lal, AIR 1956 Raj 185 ; Daulat Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1960 Raj 86; rattan Singh v. Deputy Commr. Bohtak, ILR (1962) 2 Punj 533; m/s Avtar Singh ranjit Singh v. Assessing Authority, 65 Pun LR 422: Thansingh Nathamal v. Supdt. of taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419 ; Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 and Lakshman Lal v. Rameshwar Ram 1963 BLJR 710. It is unnecessary to refer in detail to these decisions because in my view the position is now settled beyond the controversy by the Supreme Court in more cases that none and then ration of the Supreme Court decisions and the decisions of the Court cited on behalf of the respondents does not militate against that position. It is true that in Tek Chand's case AIR 1956 Raj 185 in head-note (a) we find the following observations:

(3.) THAT the existence of an alternative remedy does not per se operate as an absolute legal bar to the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari etc. under Article 226 of the Constitution or to 7 such relief being granted on its writ side and that this factor has only self-created relevance in the exercise of the Court's judicial discretion is not disputed and indeed is no longer open to question is in face of repeated unequivocal decision of the Supreme Court to which it is no longer necessary to refer. In so far however as interference on writ side with grievances relating to elections to Municipal Committees or to the panchayats etc. is concerned this Court has recently considered the legal position in more cases that one. A Division Bench in Devi Ram v. State of Punjab, Civil Writ no. 1408 of 1964 (Punj) has very recently observed: