N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) QUESTION involved in both the petitions are common. Hence, a common order. A few facts which gave raise to these writ petitions are:- 1. Originally sulya was the town municipal council, and by virtue of coming into force of Karnataka zilla parishads, taluk panchayat samithis, mandal panchayats and nyaya panchayats Act, 1983 (in short 'the act of 1983'), it was converted into mandal panchayat. Election to the mandal panchayat was held. After election of members to the mandal panchayat, the prescribed officer issued a notice proposing to hold election to the office of pradhan and upa-pradhan of sulya. The deputy commissioner by his order dated 5-5-1990 had appointed tahsildar, sulya as the prescribed officer to conduct election to the office of pradhan and upa-pradhan of sulya. Accordingly, election to the office of pradhan and upa-pradhan was held on 30-5-1990. But election was not under the control and supervision of the tahsildar, sulya, but under the control and supervision of the tahsildar, puttur who on the date of election was holding additional charge of sulya. In w. P. No. 14546/1990 the petitioner has challenged the election of both pradhan and upa-pradhan. Whereas in W. P. No. 11865/1990 the challenge is only to the election of pradhan. ( 2 ) THE challenge to the election of pradhan and upa-pradhan in these writ petitions are on the following grounds:- the entire election that was held on 30-5-1990 was not in conformity with the Provisions of Karnataka z. ps. , t. p. ss. , m. ps. and n. ps. Act, 1983, hereinafter referred to as 'the act'. When the deputy commissioner appointed a tahsildar, sulya, as prescribed officer, was not right in allowing the tahsildar, puttur, who was holding additional charge of sulya in leave vacancy, to hold elections of pradhan and upa- pradhan of sulya mandal panchayat. To put it in otherwords, when once the tahsildar, sulya, was appointed as election officer, he alone should have conducted the election and not by any other officer. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. P. V. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner in w. P. No. 14546/1990, the points involved in both the petitions are purely question of law, as such inspite of availability of alternative remedy available to them to challenge the election of pradhan and upa-pradhan, they r?n still maintain these writ petitions and claim for reliefs. P. V. Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner in w. P. No. 14546/1990, the points involved in both the petitions are purely question of law, as such inspite of availability of alternative remedy available to them to challenge the election of pradhan and upa-pradhan, they r?n still maintain these writ petitions and claim for reliefs. Whereas Sri U. L. Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents pradhan and upa-pradhan of mandal panchayat contended that election to the offices of pradhan and upa-pradhan is nothing vitiated. Since the then tahsildar, sulya, went on leave from 21-5-1990 the deputy commissioner by exercising his powers placed the tahsildar, puttur, on additional charge of sulya. The tahsildar, puttur was also holding the post of tahsildar, sulya on the date of election. According to Sri Narayana Rao, it is needless to say that whatever the duty the tahsildar, sulya had to discharge fell on the tahsildar, puttur, and he was perfectly right in discharging the obligation of holding election to the office of pradhan and upa-pradhan on 30-5-1990 by exercising the statutory duties conferred upon him. Sri Narayana Rao submitted that even if it is admitted that election that was held on 30-5-1990 was not in accordance with the Provisions of Section 43 of the act or the election rules, still it is left open for the petitioners to file election petition and challenge its legality. Thirdly, he contended that the first contention of Sri Viswanatha Shetty that holding of election by the tahsildar of puttur, who according to Sri P. V. Shetty, was just functioning on in-charge arrangement and not holding the office of tahsildar, sulya, either as additional charge or concurrently, even then, it will not make much difference, in view of the decision of this court earlier rendered in w. P. Nos. 20602 and 20603/1983, dated 5-11-1985. While answering the similar question, this court in the above writ petitions in para 15 held as follows:- "in-charge arrangement and an additional charge arrangement. In the case of in-charge arrangement, a person holding a lower post is placed in in-charge or independent charge of a superior post whenever such arrangement becomes necessary in the exigencies of service. Such persons cannot discharge statutory duties attached to the post against which he is placed in-charge or independent charge. See: maridev v state of Mysore (4 ). But additional charge is combination of appointments. Such persons cannot discharge statutory duties attached to the post against which he is placed in-charge or independent charge. See: maridev v state of Mysore (4 ). But additional charge is combination of appointments. In this arrangement, an officer holding an equivalent rank is placed in additional charge of another post when the latter post is vacant. In such a case the officer is entitled to discharge all the functions including statutory functions of the post which he holds on regular basis but also of the post in which he is placed in additional charge. Learned counsel for the corporation did not dispute that the second petitioner was a class-ii officer as a law officer and the post of assistant labour and personnel officer was entitled to discharge all the statutory duties of the latter post and therefore the finding that the 2nd petitioner had wrongly functioned as a member of the selection committee is untenable. " according to Sri Narayana Rao, the above observation in all fours apply to these cases. Thus, he submitted that no illegality or irregularity has been committed in holding election on 30-5-1990. Whereas miss. Nimmyswamy, learned high court government pleader appearing for the state while supporting the argument of Sri Narayana Rao, further submitted that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 43 of the act read with Rule 10 of the Karnataka mandal panchayat (election of pradhan and upa-pradhan) rules, 1987 hereinafter referred to as rules, the petitioners can raise all these contentions in the election petitions before the election tribunal namely the concerned munsiffs. Sub-section (2) of Section 43 reads as follows:- "any dispute relating to the validity of the election of a pradhan or upa-pradhan under sub-section (1) or under Section 42, shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer having jurisdiction over the mandal panchayat area or the major portion of the mandal panchayat area whose decision thereon shall be final. " the prescribed officer as mentioned in Section 43, sub-section (1) has to follow the rules. Section 43, sub-section (2) of the act clearly states that in case of any dispute as to the validity of the election of pradhan or upa-pradhan the same shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer. Rule 3 of the rules describes the prescribed officer. Section 43, sub-section (2) of the act clearly states that in case of any dispute as to the validity of the election of pradhan or upa-pradhan the same shall be decided by the prescribed judicial officer. Rule 3 of the rules describes the prescribed officer. It states that the tahsildar or an officer of the government not below the rank of tahsildar shall be the prescribed officer for the purpose of Section ( 4 ) IN case of dispute relating to validity of election of pradhan and upa-pradhan under Rule 8 of the rules, a provision has been made as to raising a petition within the time prescribed by paying necessary court-fee etc. , and depositing amount. Rule 9 of the rules speaks about the procedure to be followed by the munsiff, who will be acting as election tribunal. Rule 10 deals about ground for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void, which reads as follows: "if the munsiff is of opinion that the result of the election has been materially affected by the improper reception or refusal of a vote or by any non-compliance with the Provisions of the act or of any of these rules, he shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. " hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a case where the elections were held non complying with any of Provisions of the act or rules. It also cannot be said that the tahsildar, puttur, who was directed by the deputy commissioner, mangalore to discharge the duties of tahsildar, sulya, and to hold the election on 30-5-1990 was not competent to hold election. Even if it is admitted that the contentions raised by Sri P. V. Shetty require to be considered, still he has an opportunity to raise the same by challenging the election of pradhan and upa-pradhan by filing an election petition. 4. Hence, the petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. All other contentions are left open. Smt. Nimmy swamy is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks. Writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .