H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) 1. The petitioners have sought for quashing the Notification issued by respondent-1 dated 14-8-1986, copy of which is Annexure-B, as illegal and for a direction to respondent-1 to re-determine and allot seats for Mukkunda Mandal panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 ("the Act' for short ). ( 2 ) THE essential facts are as follows: the first petitioner is a resident of mukkunda village and the second petitioner is a resident of Singapura village of Sindhanur Taluk. The second petitioner belongs to Bovi community which is regarded as Scheduled Tribe. Respondent-1, by exercising the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Act, made a declaration that Mukkunda village is the headquarters of Mandal Panchayat consisting of mukkunda and other 12 constituencies, Respondent-1 divided the mandal Panchayat into 13 territorial constituencies comprising 6 villages with a view to conduct election to the Mandal panchayat of Mukkunda. By exercising powers under Sec 5 (2) of the Act. respondent-1 divided the Mandal Panchayat into different constituencies and allotted seats to each of the constituencies as well as to the constituencies in which the seats are reserved for S. C. , S T. and women. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Sec. 5 (1) of the Act, there shall be one member for every 400 population or part thereof of the Mandal as ascertained at the preceding census. 25% of the total number of members of the Mandal Panchayat shall be reserved for women out of which ona seat shall be reserved for women belonging to SC/st. According to Sec 5 (4) of the Act, there shall be reservation for members belonging to SC/st and the number of seats so reserved shall be on the basis of the propandrtion to the total number of seats of the Mandal Panchayat and in any event, the reservation shall not be less than 18% of total number of seats in the mandal Panchayat. According to the petitioners, respondent-1 has violated the mandatory requirements of Sec 5 (1), (2), (4) and (5) of the Act since allotment of seats was made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner inasmuch as more number of seats were allotted to some of the constituencies disproportionately and so also in the matter of allotment of seats reserved for SC/st without being commensurate with the population. As an example, the case of Roudakunda is stated by the petitioners and, according to them, it consists of population of 3013, but it has been divided into 5 territorial constituencies But respondent-1 has allotted and seats out of which 6 are general, one seat for women and another seat for persons belonging to SC/st, whereas in Mukkunda village with population of 1704 with 2 territorial constituencies the seats allotted are 4 out of which 3 are general and erne seat is for women and other examples are also quoted in this regard. Hence, the petitioners are aggrieved by the de limitation done by respondent-1. ( 4 ) ANNEXURE-B is the Notification dated 14-8-1966 issued by respondent-1 under Sec. 5 (5) of the Act. This notification describes the details of de limitation brought into force. ( 5 ) AT this juncture, the learned government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that, on the basis of the impugned de-limitation of the constituencies, elections have already been held and several persons have been elected to different posts. According to the learned Government Pleader not only the election which the petitioners wanted to prevent on account of the fact that, according to the petitioners, the de-limitation of constituencies was contrary to law, but also because the elected candidates after the elections were held, have not been impleaded in this writ petition and such an implesding of the elected candidates is necessary since any order that is likeiv to be passed by this Court would have legal consequences affecting their rights. Since the elected candidates have not been impleaded in this writ petition. for non-impfeading of necessary and proper parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Govt. Since the elected candidates have not been impleaded in this writ petition. for non-impfeading of necessary and proper parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Govt. Pleader sought support for this argument from the decision in Udit Narain Singh v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 in which it was held :"in a writ of certiorari not only the tribunal or authority whose order is sought to be quashed but also parties in whose favour the said order is issued are necessary parties. But it is in the discretion of the court to add or implead proper parties for completely settling all the questions that may be involved in the controversy either suo motu or on the application of a party to the writ or an application filed at the instance of such property party. "thus where in a petition for a writ of certiorari made to the High Court, only the Tribunal whose order was sought to be quashed was made a party but the persons who were parties before the lower Tribunal and in whose favour the impugned order was passed were not joined as parties ; it was held that the petition was incompetent and had been rightly rejected by the High Court. ( 6 ) THOUGH, in the instant case, at the time when the writ petition was filed, since elections had not taken place on the basis of the impugned notification of de-limitation, the question of impleading the candidates did not arise, however, by virtue of the elections during the pendency of the writ petition on the basis of the impugned de-limitation notification since persons have been elected to office, it is mandatory that the petitioners should take necessary steps to implead the elected candidates so that the consequences flowing from any order that is likely to be passed by this Court and the impact of such an order would not take effect without hearing the elected candidates who have a right to be heard. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, convinced that this is a fit case for dismissal for failure on the part of the petitioners to implead the elected candidates particularly when the relief sought is in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the de-limitation notification. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. ( 7 ) I am, therefore, convinced that this is a fit case for dismissal for failure on the part of the petitioners to implead the elected candidates particularly when the relief sought is in the nature of writ of certiorari for quashing the de-limitation notification. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .