N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) SMT. Nimmy Swamy, learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for Returning Officer, Sri R. L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri gangadhara Gurumath for Respondents-3 and 4 heard in the matter. ( 2 ) THE relief which the petitioner has sought in this petition reads as follows:"issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the notification Annexure 'a' dated 19-5-1990 bearing no. Election 12/1990-91 issued by the first Respondent and the election notification Annexure 'b' dated 12-5-1990 bearing No. Election 2/1990-91 issued by the Tahsildar, Kudlig 4th Respondent". According to him the interim Mandal Panchayat, Kudligi, Bellary District consisted of 26 members out of which 14 members belonged to Congress-I party, 11 candidates belonged to Janata Dal, and one belonging to C. P. I. (M ). The petitioner herein is one of the members of the Mandal Panchayat elected on the Congress-I ticket. On 12-5-1990, the Returning Officer in respect of election to the office of pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of Kudligi Mandal Panchayat issued a meeting notice at annexure-'b' inviting nominations to the elections to be held on 24-5-1990 to the office of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayat Just 7 days subsequent to the said notification the Zilla Parishad, Bellary District, the first respondent herein by exercising its powers conferred under Section 5 (3) of the Act nominated two persons namely Respondents-3 and 4 as members to the said Mandal Panchayat. Aggrieved by the nominations made by the first respondent on 19-5-1990 as at annexure-'a', the petitioner who had already filed his nomination seeking election to the office of Upa-Pradhan pursuant to the issue of notification under Annexure- 'b', filed this writ petition on 22-5-1990 praying that Annexure-'a' be quashed. He also sought for an interim prayer consisting of three different reliefs, namely, 1) staying the operation and effect of Annexure-'a', 2) restraining respondents 3 and 4 (nominees) from participating in the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of Kudligi mandal Panchayat to be held on 24-5-1990,3) in the alternative to stay the election of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan scheduled to be held as per annexure-'b'. ( 3 ) ON 22-5-1990, this Court while ordering issue of emergent notice to the respondent granted an interim order of stay which reads as follows:"heard. Issuee. Notice re-rule. ( 3 ) ON 22-5-1990, this Court while ordering issue of emergent notice to the respondent granted an interim order of stay which reads as follows:"heard. Issuee. Notice re-rule. Issue interim stay for two weeks. Call the case on 4-6-1990 for further orders. "the petitioner who satisfied with the order of stay of Annexure-'a' which was his main desire, participated in the election that was held on 22-5-1990 along with his other 13 friends belonging to Congress-I party. As scheduled the election of pradhan and Upa-Pradhan was held on 24-5-1990 commencing its proceedings from 11 a. m. That day there were two nominations seeking election to the office of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan on Congress-I ticket viz. the petitioner one filed by N. Mud- dappa. Now respondents 3 and 4 desired to bring him on record as additional respondent by filing an impleading application and this petitioner who sought election to the office of Upa-Pradhan. As against these two persons, other two persons who belonged to Janata Dal filed their nominations and their names are 1) B. Nagaraj and 2) J. Hanumakka. ( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner is, as per the schedule, election proceedings commenced at 11 a. m. , as except the 14 members belonging to Congress-I party including this petitioner and N. Muddappa, other members did not turn up. Respondents 3 and 4 also did not attend the meeting in view of the order of stay granted by this court on 22-5-1990. As there was no alternative, the Returning officer proceeded with the election, declared Muddappa as elected to the office of the Pradhan and the petitioner as elected to the office of Upa-Pradhan on the basis of all the 14 votes casted in their favour. ( 5 ) AFTER the election and assuming office of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan these respondents 3 and 4 who came to the Mandal Panchayat by virtue of nominations at annexure-'a' have now come up with 3 applications, one to implead said muddappa who got elected as Pradhan on 24-5-1990 as the additional respondent, second application to set aside election to the office of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan held on 24-5-1990 and the third to restrain Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan namely muddappa and this petitioner respectively from functioning. In the said application the averments made by the respondents are: 1) The entire election that took place on 24-5-1990 has been vitiated in view of the illegalities committed by the Returning officer, 2) the conduct of the petitioner herein in obtaining a blanket stay order in spite of respondents had put in caveat and subsequently suppressing the order of stay granted, 3) If nominations dated 19-5-1990 was not stayed by this court definitely these two nominees would have voted in favour of the candidates for the office of pradhan and Upa-Pradhan set up by the Janata Dal party who were 11 in number supported by CPI (M ). Thus these 14 members would have voted in favour of candidates set up by Janata Dal. Therefore, it would have resulted in a tie. If such a procedure was adopted the election would not have gone in favour of petitioner and n. Muddappa. Since the entire election dated 22-4-1990 is the resultant of fraud and illegality, instead of driving the respondents to seek relief before the election tribunal, this court itself can grant appropriate relief on their I. As. ( 6 ) AS against these contentions, Sri R. L. Patil and Smt. Nimmi Swamy argued that none of the contentions raised by respondents 3 and 4 be given any weight. According to them after all respondents 3 and 4 are the nominated members. If at all they were very much interested in helping the candidates set up by their master namely presently Ruling Party of Zilla Panshad, definitely they would have requested 11 members immediately to get the election set aside before the Election tribunal. If 11 + 1 elected members including these two nominees had any interest in participating in the election and getting their candidates elected, nothing prevented these persons so-called nominated candidates namely respondents 3 and 4 to attend the meeting dated 25-4-1990 at 11 a. m. instead of remaining absent on that day, that too when it is not in dispute that the meeting notice dated 12-5-1990 was served well in advance to these nominees and other 11 + 1 members who were their friends. ( 7 ) IF at all the real aggrieved persons, in respect of election of the petitioner and one Sri Muddappa, are, only the persons who filed nominations seeking similar position and definitely not these two respondents who are just nominees whose tenure of office will be at the pleasure of the Zilla Parishad. Since, these two persons did not choose to challenge the proceedings dated 24-5-1990 it is not proper for this court to accept whatever respondents 3 and 4 submitted and to grant a relief. Sri R. L. Patil submitted if respondents 3 and 4 were in any way aggrieved or were sure about their stand they should have definitely rushed to the Election Tribunal or persuaded their friends to go to an Election Tribunal and get the election of the petitioner and muddappa set aside. Instead of doing that, they remained silent for a considerable period. Only on 13-6-1990, namely after the lapse of 15 days from the date of election they came to this court and filed their statement of objections to the memo filed by the petitioner wherein he had sought for withdrawal of the petition. So this shows, earlier, the respondents 3 and 4 had no mind to challenge the election of the petitioner and N. Muddappa, that subsequently because of the deliberation that took place between these two respondents and other members who were ill-disposed towards the petitioners and these 13 members chose to file objections thinking that this court may give relief to them as on that day they had already lost the right, if any, to institute an Election Petition before the appropriate court either by these respondents or by their friends. In addition to this Sri R. L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as I. A. 1 is concerned he has serious objection. LA. 1 is to implead Sri N. Muddappa. According to him the writ petition can be disposed of in the absence of said Muddappa, as no relief has been sought against the said muddappa. (2) I. A. 2 is for setting aside the election. He submitted that this is not the forum. If really the respondents are interested in getting the election of the petitioner and Muddappa set aside, they can go before the appropriate forum. (2) I. A. 2 is for setting aside the election. He submitted that this is not the forum. If really the respondents are interested in getting the election of the petitioner and Muddappa set aside, they can go before the appropriate forum. (3) The third application is regarding the prayer to restrain the elected members, petitioner and muddappa from continuing as Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan. He argued that time and again this court and also the Supreme Court held that it is most unsafe, improper and illegal to restrain the elected members from functioning and discharging their duties. For these reasons both R. L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Nimmi swamy, learned High Court Government Pleader prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. After hearing both sides, I am of the opinion that the application now filed by respondents 3 and 4 seeking to implead, to set aside the election and to restrain the petitioner and one Muddappa from functioning as Pradhan and upa-Pradhan, cannot be considered. No doubt if this election is set aside definitely it will upset not only the petitioner, even N. Muddappa, the Pradhan of the Mandal panchayat. ( 8 ) THE second relief sought for in all these I. As. by the respondents are in the nature of claiming relief in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Such relief cannot be granted by this court. If really the respondents are advised that the relief which they sought now to obtain through these I. As. are just and necessary they shall have to get it by way of instituting separate proceedings. Apart from this, I do not think this is either proper or opportune to consider the prayer in I. A. 2 for setting aside the election on the ground that the election took place on 24-5-1990, either due to fraud played by the Returning Officer in winding up the proceeding at about 10-45 a. m. or the fraud and mischief played by the petitioner by obtaining stay, thus misleading the 11 members including the nominees. These are all questions of facts which are to be agitated only before proper court and not before this court wherein the petitioner has merely requested this court to consider whether the nominations are good or bad. These are all questions of facts which are to be agitated only before proper court and not before this court wherein the petitioner has merely requested this court to consider whether the nominations are good or bad. Regarding the third application also, I am of the view that the same is not maintainable as firstly there cannot be an injunction against persons duly elected in a democratic process unless their continuance and functioning held as illegal by a competent court. Secondly as contended by both the advocates namely Sri R. L. Patil and Smt. Nimmi Swamy that these respondents are not the aggrieved persons. The real aggrieved persons are the contestants to the office of the Pradhan and upa-Pradhan sponsored by Janata Dal. Hence the third application cannot be considered. Now the question would be whether I. A. 1 seeking for impleading to be considered. When it is said that other applications filed by the respondents 2 and 3 does not deserve to be considered, no purpose will be served by allowing LA. 1 filed by respondent, to bring on record Sri N. Muddappa as an additional respondent. Therefore, all the three LAs. deserve to be rejected. ( 9 ) REGARDING the first contention which Sri Gurumath requested to consider lastly, namely the interim order granted by this court on 22-5-1990 runs contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court in SLP 268-269/1989 and others disposed of on 21-8-1989 wherein it is held:'the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. But we direct the Zilla Parishads to make fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 (3) of the kamataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 within a period of three weeks from today. The zilla Parishad should hold election for the offices of Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of the Mandal Panchayats within a period of three weeks from that date. If the nominations are not made within a period of the three weeks then the elections will be held. And the order of this court dated 30tb January, 1989 passed in Civil miscellaneous Petition Nos. 605-606 of 1989 be and is hereby vacated. "which has been subsequently explained by this court in the case of Kumarappa v B. Manjunath, ILR 1990 Kar. 2041. According to him the law laid down in both the cases have no application to the case in question. 605-606 of 1989 be and is hereby vacated. "which has been subsequently explained by this court in the case of Kumarappa v B. Manjunath, ILR 1990 Kar. 2041. According to him the law laid down in both the cases have no application to the case in question. There, the Supreme Court had held that whenever the election of the Pradhan and Upa-Pradhan held to be illegal by virtue of illegal nominations filed, the election to such offices be held by making fresh nominations to the Zilla Parishad. The reason for the Hon'ble Supreme Court to pass such an order has been explained by this court in Kumarappa 's case that whenever pradhan and Upa-Pradhan of a Mandal Panchayat elected on the strength of nominations made by the President of the Zilla Parishad such election be declared as void. Then once again a fresh election to be held to the said offices. But in the instant case, question of making any direction to the Election Officer as the one made in kumarappa's case does not arise for the reason that neither 11 + 1 members nor these two respondents had any interest in participating in election to the office of pradhan and Upa-Pradhan on 24-5-1990 when they contended themselves that they kept themselves away from the Mandal Panchayat where elections took place. Now it is not open for them to find fault either in the procedure followed by the Returning officer or say this court could not have granted an interim order dated 22-5-1990. It is quite clear that in the instant case it is respondents and their friends had completely acquiesced in the election that took place on 24-5-1990. If their contention that every thing took place in an illegal way accepted as correct, immediately thereafter they should have approached the appropriate forum for necessary relief. As they were not vigilant in agitating further for relief which according to them, a genuine one, at this late stage they are not entitled to. This has to be said because by the conduct of the petitioner and respondents, it is clear that though not on 24-5-1990 at least a little earlier to 6-6-1990 they were aware of the so-called illegalities because on 6-6-1990 according to Sri Gummath, counsel for respondents 3 and 4 on instructions given by respondents 3 and 4 their advocate prepared statement of objections. If that was so, i fail to understand what prevented these respondents 3 and 4 in approaching the election Tribunal well in time. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, all the three LAs. are rejected and there is no order as to costs. All other contentions are left open. ( 11 ) AFTER the disposal of this I. A. , learned counsel Sri R. L. Patil submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition itself. Permission granted and writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Smt. Nimmi Swamy, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance in 2 weeks. --- *** --- .