M. Vaikundaraj vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

K.A. Swami, C.J.—This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.09.1996 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing W.P.No.

13640 of 1996.

In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the proceedings of the Commissioner/Election Officer of the 4th respondent dated

29.08.1996. By the impugned proceedings, the State Election Officer has allotted seats for women in Puliyangudi Municipality.

The aggrievance made is that the allotment of seats for women is not in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Town Panchayeats, Municipalities and

Corporations (De-limitation of Wards or Divisions and Reservation) Rules, 1996 as the allotment offends the provisions which provides for

allotment of seats to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Caste women according to the population ratio.

Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Article 243 ZG is a bar for going into the question urged in the writ

petition and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to file an election petition and make it a ground for challenging the election.

Article 243 ZG has been specifically enacted into the Constitution for taking away the jurisdiction of the courts, even of the High Court under

Article 226, to interfere with the election process. The said Article specifically provides thus:-

243 ZG Bar to interference by Courts in election matters:-Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-

(a) the Validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be

made under Article 243ZA shall not be called in question in any Court.

(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is

provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.

From the aforesaid provisions contained in Article 243 ZG it is clear that allotment of seats to constituencies cannot also be challenged in a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution and the appropriate remedy for any aggrieved person is to challenge the election by way of an election

petition, as stated in Clause (b) of Article 243 ZG of the Constitution.

Section 51-B of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act provides for the grounds for declaring the election to be void in an election petition

field before the District Judge u/s 51-A of the said Act. Clause (d) (iv) of Sub-section (1) of Sec- 51-A of the Act specifically provides that if the

result of the election, in so for as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially effected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or

of any rules on orders made thereunder, the District Judge shall declare the election of the returned candidates to be void.

The contention is that improper allotment of seats cannot be raised in an election petition.

We find it very difficult to accept this contention. Section 51-B of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, does not make any such

distinction. Therefore, we are of the view that in the light of the bar contained under Article 243 ZG of the Constitution, the proper remedy for the

petitioner is to file an election petition. We, accordingly, keep open all the contentions and also set aside all the findings, if any recorded, or the

observations, if any, made by the learned single judge and dismiss the writ petition on the ground that it is not maintainable. The appeal is,

accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.