2006 (3) TMI 733 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Legality and validity of the elections held on 19th December 2005.
3. Alleged confusion regarding the election date.
4. Non-impleadment of necessary parties in the writ petition.
5. Invocation of writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The appellants contended that the writ petition under Article 226 was not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious remedy was available under Sections 31, 32, and 33 of the DSG Act. However, the court held that the writ petition was maintainable, emphasizing that the powers of judicial review under Article 226 cannot be curtailed by legislative action. The court cited several judgments, including *Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana*, to affirm that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is expansive and can be invoked in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

2. Legality and Validity of the Elections:
The learned Single Judge initially found that the elections scheduled for 19th December 2005 were legally convened and complied with the statutory requirements. However, the judgment also noted a contradiction regarding the eight-day notice requirement. Despite this, the court concluded that the elections were validly summoned and upheld the legality of the elections held on 19th December 2005.

3. Alleged Confusion Regarding the Election Date:
The court found no substantial evidence of confusion among the members regarding the election date. It was noted that in a small constituency of 50 voters, the plea of confusion was unsustainable, especially given the modern means of communication. The court concluded that the absence of 15 members was not due to confusion but by design, as both factions had adopted inconsistent stances leading up to the elections.

4. Non-Impleadment of Necessary Parties:
The appellants argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the non-impleadment of the 15 elected members. However, the court held that the interests of these members were adequately represented before the learned Single Judge and no prejudice was caused by their non-joinder. The plea of non-joinder was deemed a plea of desperation and unsustainable.

5. Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction Despite Alternative Remedy:
The court reiterated that the availability of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The court cited several judgments to affirm that the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction in cases of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, even if an alternative remedy exists. The court found that the conduct of both factions warranted the invocation of writ jurisdiction to examine the legality and efficacy of the election.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 and upheld the legality of the elections held on 19th December 2005. The plea of confusion was found to be unsustainable, and the non-impleadment of necessary parties did not affect the validity of the writ petition. The Letters Patent Appeals were partly allowed, setting aside the learned Single Judge's judgment quashing the elections, and the elections dated 19th December 2005 were upheld.