HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a voter of ward No. 19 to 115 of chamaraja assembly constituency, mysore. He has filed this writ petition challenging the election of respondents 3 and 4 as councillors to the Mysore city corporation, mysore, which r 13 was held on 29-4-1990, on the ground that the election was vitiated for the reasons (i) that, after the delimitation of the constituencies made by the government by exercising its power under Section 21 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the returning officer should have conducted the election by fixing the polling station as per the divisions constituted instead of altering the polling station No. 20 as at Annexure f without holding election as per Annexure d and by such illegal approach the petitioner was deprived of not only his vote but also other 63 voters in exercising their franchise in the election in ward No. 19 that was held on 29-4- 1990; and (ii) that, no doubt, under Section 33 of the act even a voter can challenge the election of the returned candidate. But, when the petitioner has filed this writ petition, if this court instead of ordering issue of emergent notice regarding Rule to the respondents had dismissed the writ petition, the petitioner would have availed of the alternative remedy of filing an election dispute before the election tribunal and having not done so by this court this writ petition is maintainable and thus it has to be heard on merit. ( 2 ) IN support of the second contention, sri. Raghupathi, learned counsel forthe petitioner, relied on 2 decisions, viz. , A. I. R. 1969 S. C. , 556 (Mis. Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v Interim Zilla Parishad now zilla parishad, Muzaffarnagar) and A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 33 (L. Hirday narain v Income-tax officer, Bareilly ). In baburam's case, the Supreme Court has held thus: "when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the high court to issue a prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the high court to issue a writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the high court to issue a writ. But, the existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs and where such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good grounds therefor. But it should be remembered that the Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted is a Rule of self imposed limitation, a Rule of policy, and discretion rather than a Rule of law and the court may therefore in exceptional cases issue a writ such as a writ of certiorari, notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies have not been exhausted there are at least two well- recognised exceptions to the doctrine with regard to the exhaustion of statutory remedies. In the first place, it is well settled that where proceedings are taken before a tribunal under a provision of law, which is ultra vires it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the high court under art. 226 for issuing appropriate writ for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent, without his being obliged to wait until these proceedings run their full course. In the second place, the doctrine has no application in a case where the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. " (emphasis supplied) in hirday narain's case, the Supreme Court held thus: "an order under Section 35 of the income-tax act is not appealable. It is true that a petition to revise the order could be moved before the commissioner of income-tax. But hirday narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the high court entertained that petition. If the high court had not entertained his petition, hirday narain could have moved the commissioner in revision, because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by Section 33-a of the act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for "" an order correcting the order of the income-tax officer under sec. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for "" an order correcting the order of the income-tax officer under sec. 35, but was not moved, the high court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was entertained and was heard on the merits. " In view of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the above two cases, sri. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the action of the returning officer in changing the place of polling station for the election held on 29-4-1990 may be declared as illegal. If the said action of the returning officer is held as illegal, the necessary order to be made is that the election of respondents 3 and 4 took place on 29-4-1990 by improper exclusion and improper inclusion of votes (nearly 63 votes) should be held as void. No doubt, he has made all the necessary persons as parties to this petition. ( 3 ) NOW the point for considerationis (i) whether in view of Section 21 read with Section 35 of the act this court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and grant relief as prayed for by the petitioner or he has to work out his remedies before the appropriate forum and (ii) merely because this court has issued emergent notice, can it be said that the petitioner was prevented from approaching the election tribunal well in time and, if so, whether this court can entertain the writ petition and allow the parties to produce evidence to prove the disputed facts. ( 4 ) SRI. M. Papanna, learned counselfor the municipality, sri. A. J. Sadashiva, learned counsel for respondent-3 and Smt. Nimmi Swamy, learned high court government pleader, for the rsturning officer argued that this is not a fit case where the relief sought for by the petitioner can be granted. According to them, the question involved in this case is purely complicated in nature and the genuineness or otherwise of the averments made therein being under dispute can be adjudicated only before the election tribunal where the parties will have opportunity to adduce evidence and to prove their case and not before this court under Article 226 of the constitution. According to them, the question involved in this case is purely complicated in nature and the genuineness or otherwise of the averments made therein being under dispute can be adjudicated only before the election tribunal where the parties will have opportunity to adduce evidence and to prove their case and not before this court under Article 226 of the constitution. In support of their contention, they relied upon the decision of this court in Maruthi v State of Karnataka (I. L. R. 1990 KAR. 1378) wherein the earlier decisions of this court and also of the Supreme Court have been referred to and explained the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution when the election process was set in and an alternative and effective remedy is available. ( 5 ) SRI. Papanna, learned counsel forthe corporation, denied the allegations of sri. Raghupathy that there was no need for the returning officer to change the polling stations in an abrupt and arbitrary manner. According to him, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite incorrect. In support of the same, he relied upon the parawise remarks which are extracted hereunder: "para No. 4:- regarding para 4 of the petition it is correct to state that there were 11 polling stations in the 19th ward covering polling stations nos, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32,39,40,41 and 42. It is true that in the earlier notification the name of the polling station No. 25 was mentioned as Nirmala Nursary Primary Middle and High School II Main, v. V. Puram (east of the southern portion) and the area of polling station No. 25 as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cross and 9th cross of gokulam park II stage lanes, 1st 2nd 3rd, 12th cross roads. It is submitted that due to typographical error the name of the polling station and the area of the polling station No. 25 was typed against polling station No. 26 and vice versa without affecting the polling station No. And the number of voters. This typographical error was noticed later on and immediately a corrigendum was issued and the same was duly intimated to the contesting candidates. Besides to the above said effect public notice was also published in the corporation office and also at 'the respective polling station. This typographical error was noticed later on and immediately a corrigendum was issued and the same was duly intimated to the contesting candidates. Besides to the above said effect public notice was also published in the corporation office and also at 'the respective polling station. To give proper instructions and guidence to the voters concerned one separate official was deputed to each of these two polling stations. It is also pertinent to note that the distance between these two polling stations is less than a kilometers, to be more precise there are only four cross roads in between these polling stations. The corrigendum in correcting the typographical error relating to name and area of the polling station is in confirmity with the voter list prepared earlier and used in the earlier election. Under the above circumstances that there was no chance for any one or to the petitioner to have a wrong impression that his polling station would be at nirmala nursary primary middle and high school if Main v. V. Puram as alleged in para 4 of the petition. " According to him, reading of the said averments will disprove the case set up by the petitioner. ( 6 ) REGARDING the second contention,sri. Sadashiva, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, submitted that the reliance of sri. Raghupathi on baburam's case ( AIR 1969 SC 556 ) has no relevance to the facts of the case of the petitioner. According to him, that was a case where the Supreme Court said that alternative remedy need not be insisted upon when the orders passed by the tribunal is ultra vires or against the principles of natural justice. Regarding the reliance placed on hirday narain's case ( AIR 1971 SC 33 ), sri. Sadashiva submitted that the same also has no application to the petitioner's case since that was a case where there was no complicated question of law involved. It was purely the question of interpretation of the Provisions of Section 33 of the income tax act. Regarding the reliance placed on hirday narain's case ( AIR 1971 SC 33 ), sri. Sadashiva submitted that the same also has no application to the petitioner's case since that was a case where there was no complicated question of law involved. It was purely the question of interpretation of the Provisions of Section 33 of the income tax act. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing the learned counselfor all the parties, I am of the opinion that this writ petition has to be dismissed for the following reasons : i) under Section 33 of the karnat- aka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, a provision has been made to the effect that no election of a councillor shall be called in question except by an election petition presented for adjudication to the district court having jurisdiction, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the result of election under Section 32. Section 34 of the act deals with the relief that may be claimed by the petitioner in an election petition. Section 35 of the act deals with the grounds for declaring election to be void. Sub-classes (iii) and (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the act read as follows: " (1) subject to the Provisions of sub-section (2), if the court is of opinion (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected, (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void ; or (iv) by any non-compliance with the Provisions of this act or of any rules or orders made thereunder, the court shall declare the election of the candidate to be void. " Under Section 38 of the act against the order passed by the election tribunal an appeal lies to the high court. No doubt under Section 21 of the act power is given to deal with the determination of division. Any non-observance thereto and if the elections are held ignoring the divisions already fixed can be definitely brought within the scope of Section 35 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, which is one of the grounds to challenge the election of the returned candidate. Any non-observance thereto and if the elections are held ignoring the divisions already fixed can be definitely brought within the scope of Section 35 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, which is one of the grounds to challenge the election of the returned candidate. II) even in a case where improper exclusion or improper inclusion of votes or reception or refusal of votes, under clause (iii) of Section 35 (1 ) (d) of the Act, an aggrieved person, including a voter can maintain an election petition. ( 8 ) NOW the question will be whether such an illegality had taken place. If so, at whose instance? Whether the returning officer had committed any mistake in changing the polling station or whether he had rectified by issuing a corrigendum as narrated by sri. Papanna, learned counsel for the corporation, by taking into consideration of the parawise remarks extracted above ? Whether the petitioner who is a voter is deprived of his right to exercise his franchise ? All these things are to be considered only after giving an opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner but also to the returning officer and others including the candidates to the elections to 19th division. As such, when the issue involved is complicated in nature which require facts in dispute be proved only by adducing evidence both oral and documentary, this is not the forum where the petitioner can seek for redressal. ( 9 ) REGARDING alternative remedy,time and again this court and also the Supreme Court have taken the view that when once an election process is set in it is incorrect and improper for the high court to interfere with the election by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution. In the instant case, the election took place on 29-4 1990 and the petitioner had ample opoortunity of raising an election dispute before the district court, if he was really aggrieved. Instead of doing so, he has chosen this forum and taking advantage of the emergent notice ordered, he cannot plead that he was deprived of the alternative remedy in view of the decisions relied upon earlier. According to me, those decisions are not applicable to the case. In babu- ram's case ( AIR 1969 SC 556 ) what was complained of was relating to the order passed under the Rule of ultra vires. According to me, those decisions are not applicable to the case. In babu- ram's case ( AIR 1969 SC 556 ) what was complained of was relating to the order passed under the Rule of ultra vires. Likewise in the hirday narain's case ( AIR 1971 SC 33 ) also the view taken has no application that in view of the circumstances involved therein the Supreme Court said that in the interest of parties the matter was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution instead of driving the parties to approach the election tribunal. "but, those decisions of the Supreme Court are earlier to the decision in Muthuswamy v K. Natarajan and others ( AIR 1988 SC 616 ). The Supreme Court therein, after referring to the principles laid down in N. P. Ponnuswamy v Returning officer ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ) and in Nanhoo Mal v Hira Mal ( AIR 1976 SC 214 ), held that it is not proper for the high court to interfere with the election under Article 226 of the Constitution after the commencement of the election process but before the declaration of the results of the election to fill up the vacancy of the president of the Tamil Nadu congress (i) committee and that the parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy. ( 10 ) SINCE, it is not shown any illegality or impropriety was committed in theelection of the 19th ward of the corporation of the city of mysore, I am unable to accept the theory of the petitioner. The petitioner being a voter had not shown any interest even in getting his right agitated well in time by raising an election dispute and has now unnecessarily driven the candidate who got elected and also the corporation to the court. ( 11 ) HENCE, this writ petition is dismissed. writ petition dismissed. --- *** --- .