P. P. BOPANNA, J. ( 1 ) 1. I. A. No. I for impleading is allowed since the applicant is a member of the Mandal panchayat and he has sufficient interest in the proper constitution of the Mandal pancnayat. ( 2 ) THIS petition is treated as having been posted for hearing and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is one of the elected members of the Babi Mandal Panchayat in mandya District. After the elections were held, the Prescribed Officer issued a notice of meeting for the election of Pradhana and upa-pradhana on 10-4-1987 under Section 43 of the Karnataka Zilla Parishad, Taluk panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (in short 'the act') Read With Rule 4 of the Karnataka mandal Panchayats (Pradhana and Upa- pradhana Election) Rules, 1987 (in short 'the rules') for holding the first meeting after the constitution of the Mandal Panchayat on 22- 4-1987 at 3-00 p. m. The notice was issued for the purpose of election of Pradhana and upapradhana. By that notice he invited notices of motion as required under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules in writing calling upon the members to nominate another member as pradhan and Upa-pradhan as the case may be duty seconded by a third member and accompanied by a statement of the member so chosen indicating that he was willing to be pradhana or Upa-pradhana if elected. Pursuant to the said notice which is produced as annexure-A in the writ, petition, the prescribed Officer received a notice dated 21-4-1987 under Annexure-B in writing and that notice indicated that the petitioner should be chosen as a Pradhan as required under Rule 4 (2) of the Rules. Likewise, another notice was received by the prescribed Officer indicating that one H. S. Sidde Gowda Bin Dollegowda, another elected member should be chosen as Pradhan as required under the aforesaid rules. Both these notices of motion dated 21-4-1987 were received at 12-00 Noon. Similarly two other notices dated 21-4-1987 produced as annexures-B2 and B3 proposing the names of A. N. Chikkadalegowda and one Smt. Chikkolamma Kom. M. Girigowda were received by the Prescribed Officer nominating them for the posts of Upapradhan. All these notices of motion were in proper form and they had been properly proposed and seconded. Similarly two other notices dated 21-4-1987 produced as annexures-B2 and B3 proposing the names of A. N. Chikkadalegowda and one Smt. Chikkolamma Kom. M. Girigowda were received by the Prescribed Officer nominating them for the posts of Upapradhan. All these notices of motion were in proper form and they had been properly proposed and seconded. However, Siddegowda Bin Dollegowda who was proposed and seconded to the post of Pradhan subsequently tendered his resignation from the Mandal Panchayat and the same was accepted by the Administrative Officer, Babi Mandal Panchayat by his endorsement dated 17-3-1988. Thus the petitioner alone' was left in the field to the post of Pradhan. It is further averred in the petition that M/s. Srinivasaiah and basavaraju were nominated by the Adhyak- sha of the Mandal Zilla Parishad but not by the Mandya Zilla Parishad and therefore, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 5859 of 1987 before this Court challenging the validity of the nomination of members so nominated under Section 5 (3) of the Act. In that petition an interim order was made by this Court on 21-4-1987 staying the election of Pradhan and Upa Pradhan scheduled to be held in terms of the notice (Annexure-A ). Consequently, the election to those posts were not held by the Prescribed Officer. That writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous since the nominated members Srinivasaiah and Basavaraju tendered their resignation. The resultant position is that the election to the posts of pradhan and Upapradhan should have been continued from the stage from which it was stayed by the interim order made by this court on 21-4-1987. That writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous since the nominated members Srinivasaiah and Basavaraju tendered their resignation. The resultant position is that the election to the posts of pradhan and Upapradhan should have been continued from the stage from which it was stayed by the interim order made by this court on 21-4-1987. ( 4 ) NOW the impleaded respondent J. Rajashekraiah has contended that he and the other elected members belonging to Janatha party had proposed the name of Siddegowda for the post of Pradhan in pursuance of the notice dated 10-4-1987 which is produced as annexure-A in the writ petition; that Siddegowda during the pendency of the said writ petition resigned from the membership of the Mandal Panchayat and this Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on 27-5-1988 as the nominated members had also resigned; that he was one of the members who had consented to the candidature of Siddegowda who was a 'consensus candidate; that this Siddegowda was expected to protect the interest of the members belonging to Janatha Party and now that he being no longer a member, there is no candidate representing the party to which the impleaded respondent belongs to and therefore the petitioner who is likely to be elected unanimously should not be permitted to get elected by virtue of the interim order made by this Court. ( 5 ) MR. Gopalaswami, learned Counsel for the impleaded respondent submitted that the law laid down by this Court in Ningappa ramachandra Gurav applied to an ideal situation where members got themselves proposed and seconded to contest the elections without betraying the parties whose candidates had proposed and seconded them; that Siddegowda had resigned betraying the interest of the members of the janatha Party and hence the election should be thrown open to all the members once again without restricting the same from the stage from where it was stayed. According to him the entire complexion of the election process had changed consequent on the resignation of both nominated members and the other candidates namely, Siddegowda and fresh elections had to be held inviting notice of motion for the post of Pradhan as otherwise the entire democratic process in the election of pradhan and Upa-pradhan would be defeated. According to him the entire complexion of the election process had changed consequent on the resignation of both nominated members and the other candidates namely, Siddegowda and fresh elections had to be held inviting notice of motion for the post of Pradhan as otherwise the entire democratic process in the election of pradhan and Upa-pradhan would be defeated. He further submitted that the general principle applicable to the election process where it is stayed by interim orders or this Court would not applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, this is a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the constitution and set right the anomalies created in the electoral process prescribed for the election of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. ( 6 ) THAT takes me to the Scheme of Election to the post of pradhan and Upa-pradhan. The mode of election to those posts is governed by Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. These rules bear a close similarity to the rules framed under the Representation of people Act for the election of Speaker and deputy Speaker of Loka Sabha. In the book titled 'practice and Procedure for Parliament' by the authors M. N. Kaul and S. L. Shakdher, the mode of election of the Speaker is found at page 74 of that book. It reads as under:"the date for the election of the speaker has to be filed by the President. The date convenient for the purpose is suggested by the Prime Minister in a communication to the Secretary-General who then submits a note embodying the suggestion of the Prime Minister to the president for his order. After the president has approved the proposal, members of Lok Sabha are informed through the Bulletin. Simultaneously, entry regarding "election of Speaker" is made in an advance list of business issued for the day on, which election of the Speaker is fixed, the date is normally so chosen that members have a few days' time to give notices of motions. After the president has approved the proposal, members of Lok Sabha are informed through the Bulletin. Simultaneously, entry regarding "election of Speaker" is made in an advance list of business issued for the day on, which election of the Speaker is fixed, the date is normally so chosen that members have a few days' time to give notices of motions. At any time before noon on the day preceding the date so fixed, any member may give notice in writing, addressed to the Secretary-General, of a motion that another member be chosen as the Speaker of the House, and the notice has to be seconded by a third member and accompanied by a statement by the member, whose name is proposed in the notice, that he is willing to serve as speaker, if elected. A member cannot, however, propose his own name, or second a motion proposing his own name, or propose or second more than one motion. Notice of motion for election of the candidate selected by the Government party is normally given by the Prime minister or the Minister of Parliamentary affairs. All the notices of motion which are in order are entered in the order in which they are received in point of time in the revised List of Business which is issued on the day preceding the day fixed for election of the Speaker. Where notice of two identical motions is given by the same member, only one motion which is received first in point of time is included in the List of Business. A member in whose name a motion stands on the List of Business may, when called, move the motion or withdraw the motion, and while doing so he has to confine himself to a mere statement to that effect. The motion, if moved, is then. seconded by the member whose name stands on the List of Business as seconder and he has also to confine himself to a mere statement to that effect. The motions which have been moved. and duly seconded are put to the vote of the House one by one in the order in which they have been moved, and decided, if necessary, by division. If any motion is carried, the person presiding, without putting later motions, declares that the member proposed in the motion which has been carried has been chosen as the Speaker of the House. If any motion is carried, the person presiding, without putting later motions, declares that the member proposed in the motion which has been carried has been chosen as the Speaker of the House. Even - though there is only one candidate for the office, the motion regarding his election must formally be put to the House and carried. After the election, the Prime Minister and the leader of the main Opposition group go to the seat of the Speaker-elect, bow to him and conduct him to the Chair. Felicitations are offered by the Prime minister and other members on behalf of different sections of the House and the speaker makes a brief reply. Thereafter, the House proceeds with its regular business, if any, on the List of Business. The election of the Speaker is notified in the Gazette by the Secretariat. "at page 75, there is a reference to the convention followed by the Lok Sabha in the election of Speaker. To quote the learned authors':"in India, the Presiding Officers follow more or less the traditions and conventions established by the Speakers of the British House of Commons. Even during the tenure of Sri Frederick Whyte who was only a nominated Presiding officer, the British model of speakership was generally followed. The Presiding officer kept himself completely aloor from party politics. "speaker Patel dissociated himself from the Swaraj Party of which he was an active member prior to his election and during his entire term of office he kept himself aloof from party interest. In the election of 1926 he did not stand on the congress Ticket but stood as an independent candidate from his old constituency and was returned unopposed. The Presiding Officers who succeeded speaker Patel in the Central Legislative assembly Sri M Yakub, Shri Brahim rahimtoola, Shri Shanmukhan Chetty, Sri abdul Rahim held more or less similar views on the need for impartiality and non-party character on the part of a presiding Officer. " from this observation this Court can proceed on the basis that the election of pradhan and Upa-pradhan in the Mandal panchayats is not governed by Party consideration or party politics since the Pradhan and Upa-pradhan are expected to hold the scales evenly among the competing claims of the members of the Mandal Panchayat who may belong to different political parties. So, the contention of Mr. So, the contention of Mr. Gopala Swamy that siddegowda was the consensus candidate and his resignation has upset the election process set in motion for the election of pradhan and Upa-pradhan is not supported by any convention or precedent or authority. That is the reason why though these offices may not be as high as the office of the speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Legislature has adopted the same procedure that is followed for election or Speaker, however, humble these elective offices may be. ( 7 ) NOW the question is what is the effect of Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules on the process of election which had been stayed by this Court by its interim order datea 21-2- 1987? In Ningappa Ramachandra Gurav v state of Karnataka (I. L. R. 1988 Kar. 1348), this Court, in para-28 of its order had directed the Returning Officer to continue the election process from the stage where it was stayed in accordance with law after declaring that the nomination of the nominated members was bad in law. That is the reason, sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the rules provides that the motions which have been moved and duly seconded will be put to vote one by one in the order in which they have been moved and decided if necessary by division. If any motion is carried by a majority of members present, the prescribed officer shall without putting to vote later motions declare that the member proposed in the motion which is carried by majority is chosen as the Pradhan or Upa-pradhan. The validity of this rule is not challenged and could not be challenged. That is an indication to show that the election of Pradhan and upa-pradhan is not thrown open to all the members of Mandal Panchayat who aspire to hold such offices and it depends on the fate of the first motion that is put through under sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Rules. It is only when the candidate proposed in the first motion does not get a majority of votes, then the other motions are put to vote and whoever gets the majority will become the Pradhan or upa-pradhan as the case may be. It is only when the candidate proposed in the first motion does not get a majority of votes, then the other motions are put to vote and whoever gets the majority will become the Pradhan or upa-pradhan as the case may be. Therefore, the element of competition between one candidate and another candidate for these offices of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan is completely eliminated subject to certain conditions enumerated in Rule 5 of the Rules. Accordingly, the direction made by this court directing the authorities to continue the election process from the stage at which the election was stayed will not in any way offend the rules relating to the election of pradhan and Upa-pradhan. ( 8 ) IN A. I. R. 1988 S. C. 616 (S. T. Muthusami v K. Natarajan and others), the supreme Court, in reversal of the order of the High Court quashing the Errata Notifica- tion allotting the symbol 'hand' directed the returning Officer to proceed with the election in accordance with law from the stage at which it was interrupted by the order of the high Court. The same order has to be made in this case. Consequent on the resignation of Siddegowda and the nominated members, it is only the petitioner who is now in the fray and his election would become a 'fait accompli' if the notice of his candidature is put to vote. ( 9 ) A similar question came up before a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M. C. Basappa Setty and others v The marie Mandal Panchayat and others, reported in (1987) 2 Bangalore Law Journal, 517. In that case, it was contended before the Single Judge that in view of sub-rule (6) of Rule 4 of the Rules even the motion which gets the minority of votes can be carried. The learned Judge observed: "no doubt, according to the said Rule, if no motion is carried by a majority of members present the prescribed officer shall declare that the member proposed in the motion which has received the highest number of votes has been chosen as the pradhan and Upa-pradhan. The said rule therefore applies to the case where there are more motions than one and not to a case where there is only one motion. Where there is only, one motion no procedure is prescribed under the Rules. The said rule therefore applies to the case where there are more motions than one and not to a case where there is only one motion. Where there is only, one motion no procedure is prescribed under the Rules. So, the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 51 of the Act apply. Therefore, it is clear that even when there is only one motion, it has to be put to vote and it must be carried by majority. It is a fundamental principle of democracy that majority view must prevail. In KALAIAH's case also it was held that where a meeting for election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman is adjourned for want of quorum and where only one person had filed nomination for chairman and one for Vice-Chairman, they cannot be declared as uncontested. ( 10 ) IN Arun Kumar Base v Mohd. Furkan ansari and others (A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1311), the supreme Court reiterated its earlier view in jagan Nath v Jawant Singh (A. I. R. 1954 SC 210) wherein Mahajan, C. J. , speaking for the bench observed:"the general rule is well settled that the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed and that an election contest is not an action at law or a suit in equity but is a purely statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and that the Court possesses no common law power. "elaborating this view, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision observed:"it is pure and simple, a statutory right. So is the right to be elected. So is the right to dispute an election. Outside of stature there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore, subject to statutory limitation. An election petition is not an action at common Law, nor in equity. It is a statutory common law nor the principles of equity apply but only those which the statute makes and applies. It is a special jurisdiction, and a special jurisdiction has always to be exercised in accordance with the statute creating it. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. " ( 11 ) IN the light of this enunciation of law it is not proper for this Court to invoke the plea of equity and also pleas. Concepts familiar to Common Law and Equity must remain strangers to Election Law unless statutorily embodied. " ( 11 ) IN the light of this enunciation of law it is not proper for this Court to invoke the plea of equity and also pleas. available in common law in order to set right the supposed grievance suffered by the impleading respondent by the unforeseen situation created by the resignation of the nominated members and also the resignation of Siddegowda whose resignation, according to the impleaded respondent, had defeated the chance of having another concensus candidate for the post of Pradhan. Those considerations are entirely alien to Election Law and more so when we are considering the election of Pradhan and Upa-pradhan. ( 12 ) FOR these reasons, this petition is allowed and there shall be a direction to the prescribed Officer to call for the first Meeting of the Mandal Panchayat and in that meeting proceed to elect the Pradhan of the mandal Panchayat by following the procedure prescribed under sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Rules. --- *** --- .