ORDER: Petitioner prays for a direction to declare the election of the 5th respondent from the Thirubuvanai Reserved Constituency for Scheduled Caste of Union Territory of Pondicherry held on 10.5.2001 as void and consequently direct the first respondent is hold fresh election from that Assembly Constituency and consequently forebear the 5th respondent from taking oath, sit and vote as Member of Legislative Assembly of Union territory of Pondicherry. 2. The petitioner filed his nomination as an independent candidate for the election for the Thirubuvanai Constituency which is a reserved Constituency for scheduled caste. The 5th respondent herein also filed his nomination as a candidate. On the scrutiny of the nomination papers the Recurring Officer found that the nomination of the 5th respondent herein valid along with other six persons. The election was held on 10.5.2001 and the counting was held on 13.5.2001 and the results were declared on 13.5.2001 afternoon itself. Petitioner had secured 3949 votes as against 4753 votes secured by the 5th respondent who was declared as elected to the constituency. 3. According to the petitioner, the 5th respondent has given false declaration that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community knowing fully well he cannot contest the seat reserved for Scheduled caste. The nominations were accepted without due verification. As a matter of fact the 5th respondent is a converted Christian and ceased to be a scheduled caste on conversion into Christianity and he cannot be considered as a Scheduled Caste. If at all he can be considered only belonging to Most Backward Class. 4. In support of this averments petitioner has referred to the petition filed under Arts.213 and 214 of the Code of Civil applicable to Christians, on the file of the Family Court, Pondicherry for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Gracy, wherein he has signed his name as P.Angalan and also described him as Gilbert Daniel alias Angalan as son of Pavadai is a converted Christian. It is also mentioned in that petition on 21.9.1994 he got married in the Church situated at Rue Victor Simonal in Pondicherry as per the Religion and Customs of Christians. According to the petitioner these facts and other evidence clearly establish that he is a converted Christian. Hence inspite of the false declaration his nomination was accepted and was subsequently declared as elected. According to the petitioner these facts and other evidence clearly establish that he is a converted Christian. Hence inspite of the false declaration his nomination was accepted and was subsequently declared as elected. His election and continual exercise of the right to sit and vote in the Assembly will amount to fraud on the Constitution. Hence, the above writ petition. 5. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he was born to parents belonging to scheduled caste and all certificates issued by the schools as well as college authorities he is shown as schedule caste. The certificate issued by the Deputy Tahsildar Villanur for the purpose of this respondent getting admission in the school as well as college, it was mentioned that he belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida Community. According to him he married one Gracy who hailed from Kodaikanal and since she insisted that this respondent must marry her only in the Church for the purpose of marriage Baptism took place on 10.7.1994 and the marriage on 21.9.1994. This is only for the purpose of marrying Gracy. According to him he never left the community and he continued to follow Hindu convention and tradition. He had to file an application since only in that Forum before the Family Court because his wife belong to Christian and the marriage was solemnized in the Church. (sic.) The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.12.1998. He further states that he subsequently reconverted himself as Hindu and the documentary evidence would show that he belongs and accepted as a Hindu and the Church also excommunicated him by stating that he should not be allowed in any of the CSI Churches. He says that he never professed Christianity and always practiced Hinduism and was treated by all as Adi Dravida. The voters also accepted him as a candidate. According to him on the date of the scrutiny he was qualified to contest from the reserved constituency. The respondent further opposes the maintainability of writ petition in the light of the bar under Art.329(b) against such petition. 6. He has filed additional counter affidavit claiming that the cause title has to be described as P.Angalan and not as P.Angalan alias Gilbert Daniel. 7. 4th respondent Returning Officer has filed a counter affidavit opposing the maintainability of the writ petition. 8. 6. He has filed additional counter affidavit claiming that the cause title has to be described as P.Angalan and not as P.Angalan alias Gilbert Daniel. 7. 4th respondent Returning Officer has filed a counter affidavit opposing the maintainability of the writ petition. 8. I have heard Mr.T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Gnanadesikan on behalf of the 5th respondent and D.Rajago-palan, Senior Counsel on behalf of the Returning Officer and considered the matter carefully. 9. Two main questions arise in this case for consideration. (1) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in the light of specific bar under Art.329(b) of the Constitution of India and Sec.80 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951? (2) Whether the community of the 5th respondent as scheduled caste is admitted or disputed? 10. In so far as the first point is concerned admittedly no doubt, Art.329(b) of the Constitution of India prohibits the questioning an election except by the election petition. Similarly Sec.80, Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition. Sec.100 of the Representation of Peoples Act also sets out the ground for declaring election to be void among other grounds that on the date of election a returned candidate was not qualified or disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat. Thus, there is a clear constitutional and statutory bar to question an election of candidate except in the manner prescribed. It is not in dispute that petitioner have chosen to move the Election petition under Sec.80 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Therefore, the petitioner has availed an effective alternative remedy for the relief sought for in this writ petition. 11. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that still there are areas which can be gone into under Art.226 especially in reference to pre-election disqualification. But the point here to be taken into account for the purpose of the disqualification is whether the 5th respondent in disqualified on the date of the security of his nomination papers. In V.C.Shukla v. Purushotham Lal Kausik, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 547, it has been held that the crucial date for determination of disqualification is the date of the scrutiny of the nomination. In V.C.Shukla v. Purushotham Lal Kausik, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 547, it has been held that the crucial date for determination of disqualification is the date of the scrutiny of the nomination. According to the 5th respondent though he was Baptized as Christian and married a lady belonging to Christian religion he continued to profess Hindu faith and that he had the records issued like caste certificate describing him as a Hindu Adi Dravidar Community and that till such time the said certificate is cancelled they shall hold good to establish his community. When the petitioner has already proposed to file an election petition the same relief cannot be sought for parallelly under Art.226 of the Indian Constitution. In Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay, v. Gokak Patel Volkart Limited, and others, (1995)2 S.C.C. 642, the Supreme Court held that as there is not only the existence of an alternative remedy but the writ petitioner actually had availed of that remedy the writ petition is not maintainable. 12. The question whether the 5th respondent belongs to scheduled caste community or not is purely a question of fact. 13. In C.M.Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 939, the Supreme Court has held that the question whether on conversion to Christianity the first respondent ceased to be a member of the Adi Dravida caste, is a mixed question of law and fact. The said issue has to be decided on evidence let in by both the parties. It was further held that on reconversion of Hinduism a person can once again become a member of the caste in which he was born and to which he belonged before reconversion to another religion. 14. The only judgment strongly relied on behalf of the petitioner is the decision in K.Venkata-chala v. A.Swamikannu, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1723, wherein the Supreme Court interferred with the election matter under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships held so since the petitioner in that case could not move the election Court in time and there is no provision that the petition can be filed beyond the period of limitation. The Court went on to hold in such cases the petitioner should not be left without any remedy. That is not the case here. The petitioner has got ample opportunity and he is said to have filed already an election petition. The Court went on to hold in such cases the petitioner should not be left without any remedy. That is not the case here. The petitioner has got ample opportunity and he is said to have filed already an election petition. Therefore, the issue raised can be decided before the election Court. 15. It was pointed out that there is no disputed question of fact and on the admitted fact petitioner is not entitled to continue as Member of the Legislative Assembly. This was seriously opposed by the counsel for the 5th respondent starting that there is no admitted fact but every point is disputed and he has evidence in his support. The averments of the petitioner as well as the 5th respondent therefore requires evidence and proof and the same cannot be decided under Art.226 of the Constitution of India on the basis of affidavit and counter affidavit. Therefore, this being disputed question of fact the remedy has to be availed before the election Court and not under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 16. For all these reasons writ petition fails and is dismissed. Consequently W.M.P. is closed. 17. This is, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to agitate all the questions raised and pleaded by them in this writ petition before the election Court and they are left open.