Judgment :- 1. This Original Petition to quash by means of certiorari certain interim proceedings of the Election Tribunal, Trivandrum, or to issue any other writ, direction or order which may appear to the court just in the circumstances of the case, must fail on the merits. 2. On the question of jurisdiction we are unable to accede to the contention raised on behalf of respondent 2, the returned candidate, that Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and sections 105 and 170 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, oust the jurisdiction of this Court over Election Tribunals constituted under the said Act. We are only precluded from entering into the merits of a disputed election Whether an Election Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or assumes jurisdiction which it does not possess or an order happens to be made by a Tribunal through manifest fraud on the part of the person in whose favour it is made are matters on which the jurisdiction of the High Court is not taken away. This accords with the view the learned Advocate General who appeared for the Tribunal (Respondent 1) contended for and the position is supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Parry & Co. Ltd„ v. C. E. Assocn. A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 179. In that case the Supreme Court placed reliance upon Colonial Bank of Australia v. Robert Willan 5 P.C. Appeals 417. Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. A I R. 1940 P. C. 105 is another decision of the Privy Council dealing with the effect of provisions similar to what we obtain in Ss. 105 and 170 of the Representation of the People Act on the jurisdiction of civil courts. 3. What the petitioner however seeks in this writ application is to invite us to enter into the merits of certain decisions arrived at by the Tribunal. 105 and 170 of the Representation of the People Act on the jurisdiction of civil courts. 3. What the petitioner however seeks in this writ application is to invite us to enter into the merits of certain decisions arrived at by the Tribunal. Questions such as those raised before us in this petition, viz., whether the election petition can be allowed to be amended, whether fresh instances of corrupt practices can be allowed to be added to those mentioned in the lists accompanying the petition, whether the allegations in the petition or the lists purporting to relate to corrupt practices such as bribery or publication of false statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner or in relation to his candidature or withdrawal would if believed constitute such corrupt practices, whether the allegations in the petition falling beyond the purview of the actual relief prayed for in it could or should be enquired into and similar questions are matters which the Tribunal alone could decide and about which the High Court has no right to pronounce upon. Our decision about them cannot be substituted for the decision the Tribunal has given on them. Were we to attempt to decide them we will then be arrogating to ourselves the functions of an appellate court. It may well be that were we ourselves dealing with the election petition our decision on some of those questions might have been different or it may even be that the Tribunal has decided some questions wrongly. Either consideration cannot attract our jurisdiction. No case of the Tribunal not complying with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act or of the Tribunal not acting in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure has been made out in the petition before us. 4. The petition is hence without merits and we dismiss it with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 250, of which Rs. 150 will go to respondent 1 and Rs. 100 to respondent 2. x x x Dismissed.