Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

must be determined only by way of an election petition. As is observed by the Hon'ble Court, this by itself may not per se bar the judicial review which is the basic structure of the Constitution, but ordinarily such jurisdiction would not be exercised. In C.Subrahmanyam v. K.Ramanjaneyullu and others, (1998) 8 SCC 703, the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a writ petition should not be entertained when the main question which fell for decision before the High court was non-compliance of the provisions of the Act which was one of the grounds for an election petition in terms of Rule 12 made under the Act. In Jaspal Singh Arora Vs.State of M.P. And others, (1998) 9 SCC 494, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with this question and held that in view of mode of challenging the election by an election petition being prescribed by the M.P. Municipalities Act, it is clear that the election could not be called in question, except by election petitions as provided under this Act. The bar to interfere by the courts in electoral matters contained in Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was said to have been overlooked by the High court while allowing the writ petition. The Hon'ble Court further observed that apart from bar under Article 243- ZG on the settled principles, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of setting aside election to a municipality was not called for because of statutory provision for election petition and also the fact that in an earlier writ petition for the same purpose by a defeated candidate had been dismissed by the High Court.