Summary
Voters who were not Zilla Panchayat members could maintain a writ challenge to the Adhyaksha election because the statutory election-petition remedy was confined to members. Constitutional judicial review could not be excluded so as to leave them remediless, although entertaining the writ remained discretionary. The Court did not decide the alleged false caste certificate or election merits.
Issues
- Whether non-member voters excluded from the election-petition remedy could invoke Articles 226 and 227.
Provisions considered
- Rule 7, Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 1994The reproduced election-dispute provision permitted petitions by Zilla Panchayat members and did not give these non-member voters that remedy. (¶ 10–15)
Held
- Judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 formed part of the constitutional basic structure. Voters unable to invoke the member-only statutory remedy could not be denied an opportunity to challenge the Adhyaksha election through a writ petition; exercise of that jurisdiction remained discretionary. (¶ 12–15)
- The remand left all other contentions open. The elected appellant could continue functioning pending the writ decision, subject to its result, and the Single Judge was requested to decide preferably within four weeks. (¶ 16–17)
Result
Appeal disposed of without costs, maintaining writ maintainability and remand, with conditional continuation in office pending the High Court’s decision.