S. Abdul Nazeer JUDGMENT
S. Abdul Nazeer, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant was elected as a member of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary from 13-Badanahatti Constituency, which was reserved for General (Women) category in the election held on 20.2.2016. The State Government issued a notification dated 15.4.2016 reserving the post of Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat, Bellary for Backward Class-B (Woman). The Appellant contested for the said office and was declared as elected. Respondents 6 to 9 are residents of Bellary district and were voters in the election to the Zilla Panchayat in question. They filed Writ Petition No. 106417 of 2016 in the Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court challenging the election of the Appellant as the Adhyaksha mainly on the ground that she does not belong to backward class (B) and that she has contested the election on the basis of a false caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Kurugodu, Bellary. The Appellant raised objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition having regard to the bar contained in Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. It was also contended that the aggrieved party has to challenge the election by way of election petition before the jurisdictional District Judge.
3. Learned Single Judge by his order dated 21.10.2016 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability in view of the bar contained in Clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge also referred to Rule 7 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat) Rules, 1994 providing for the filing of the election petition before the jurisdictional District Judge by an aggrieved party.
4. Respondents 6 to 9 challenged the said order by filing Writ Appeal No. 101459 of 2016 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by order dated 5.6.2017 set aside the order of the learned Single Judge by holding that the writ petition was maintainable. The Division Bench remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal of the case, keeping open all the other questions. The Appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the said order in this appeal.
5. Appearing for the Appellant, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior Counsel, submits that the writ petition filed by Respondent Nos. 6 to 9 challenging the election of the Appellant, was not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the only remedy available to the aggrieved party is to file an election petition before the jurisdictional District Judge. In this connection, he has relied upon the decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. K.R. Narayanan MANU/SC/0877/1998 : (1998) 1 SCC 56.
6. On the other hand, Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior Counsel, appearing for Respondents 6 to 9 submitted that Respondents 6........