ORDER: The prayer in the writ petition is as follows: “To issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ declaring that the election results declared by the second respondent on 3.10.2001 that the third respondent is elected as President of Vellakavi Panchayat is illegal and unlawful and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct fresh election for Vellakavi Panchayat as per the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rule, 1995.” 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: First respondent, who is the authority to notify and draw election programmes for various Panchayats throughout the State of Tamil Nadu, issued election notification in respect of Vellakavi Panchayat situate within the Kodaikanal Taluk. As per the election programme drawn by the first respondent, nomination covers from 24.9.2001 and continued upto 1.10.2001. The petitioner filed his nomination papers before the second respondent on 24.9.2001 complying with the provisions under Rule 26 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. Along with his nomination, Form 3 which was submitted by him contained proof that he belongs to the respective ward of village panchayat in the election of Members of Village Panchayat. His nomination papers was received by the second respondent after satisfying himself with the provisions contained under Rules 26(4) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995. As per the election schedule, the scrutiny of nomination was held on 3.10.2001. On that date, he went to the office of the second respondent to know whether his nomination papers were in order. However, in order to verify the same, he was waiting in the office of the second respondent upto 5.30 p.m., he was informed that he should come on 5.10.2001 to receive election symbol. Accordingly, he left the office of the second respondent to Periakulam. On 4.10.2001, when he went to the office of the second respondent to receive copy of Form No.6, he was informed that his nomination papers were not in order and, therefore, the same was rejected. Immediately, he gave his representation through his lawyer to the second respondent, who refused to receive his representation. He also sent a telegram to the first respondent stating that the rejection of the nomination papers were against law and tainted with mala fides. Immediately, he gave his representation through his lawyer to the second respondent, who refused to receive his representation. He also sent a telegram to the first respondent stating that the rejection of the nomination papers were against law and tainted with mala fides. Since his request to the first respondent evoked no response and having no other effective alternative remedy, filed the above writ petition questioning his rejection of nomination papers on various grounds. 3. On direction by this Court and in the light of the assertion made in the affidavit, learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent- Returning Officer, Vellakavi, filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the Assistant Returning Officer was appointed to conduct election to Vellakavi Panchayat of Kodaikanal Panchayat Union. It is the duty of the Assistant Returning Officer to receive the nomination to scrutinize the nomination papers. If there is any defect, the same shall be rejected and also allow to withdrawal of nomination papers. Thereafter, the final list of the contesting candidates will be published in the Notice Board. The following 3 candidates have filed their nominations to contest the election for the post of President, Vellakavi Panchayat: (1) R. Parasakthi (petitioner herein); (2) Sudamani and (3) Banumathi (third respondent herein). The Assistant Returning Officer on scrutiny of the nomination papers of the petitioner found that there was some defect in the nomination papers. Since the petitioner was not present at the time of scrutinizing the papers, his nomination was endorsement in the nomination paper. Apart from the petitioner’s nomination, another person’s nomination paper was also rejected due to some defect in the nomination paper. Except the third respondent, there was no other person to contest the election. Hence, the Returning Officer elected the third respondent as unopposed and the same was declared and she is now functioning as the President, Vellakavi Panchayat. In view of specific bar in Art.243(o)(b) of the Constitution of India,, the petitioner is having remedy only by way of filing Election Petition the competition Court; hence the writ petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts. In the nomination paper, the petitioner had wrongly quoted the Ward number and the serial number of the elector and that of the proposer. In the nomination paper, the petitioner had wrongly quoted the Ward number and the serial number of the elector and that of the proposer. Hence, the proposer was instructed by the Assistant Returning Officer to be present at the time of scrutiny along with the candidate with correct particulars. The Assistant Returning Officer scrutinized the nomination paper at 11.00 a.m. 3.10.2001 in the Panchayat Union office, Kodaikanal as per the Notification. On that day neither the candidates nor the proposer were present at the time of scrutinizing the nomination paper. The third respondent has objected that the nomination paper of the petitioner was defective and is liable for rejection. Due to the non-availability of the petitioner at the time of scrutiny, the defects in the nomination paper could not be rectified. Therefore, the nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected by the Assistant Returning Officer. The result of the scrutiny was also intimated to all the candidates, proposers present at the time. There is no illegality or arbitrariness in the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner. The said rejection was only in accordance with the instructions issued by the State Election Commission. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents. 5. Mr.M.K. Hidayathullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the action of the second respondent in informing orally that the petitioner’s nomination papers were rejected is against law and principles of natural justice. The action of the second respondent is contrary to Rules 26 and 29 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995. On the other hand, Mr.D.Krishnakumar, learned Special Government Pleader, by drawing my attention to Art.243(o)(b) of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 12 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995 would contend that the proper remedy for the petitioner is to file appropriate election petition before the District Court and that the present writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. On merits, he contended that on scrutiny, the Assistant Returning Officer found some defect in the nomination papers submitted by the petitioner and he was also not present at the time of scrutiny, hence the Assistant Returning Officer rightly rejected his nomination, after making necessary endorsement in the nomination paper. 6. On merits, he contended that on scrutiny, the Assistant Returning Officer found some defect in the nomination papers submitted by the petitioner and he was also not present at the time of scrutiny, hence the Assistant Returning Officer rightly rejected his nomination, after making necessary endorsement in the nomination paper. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 7. Now I shall consider whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of specific provision for filing a separate Election Petition questioning the commissions or omissions on the part of the Returning Officer. Though the petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he filed his nomination paper before the second respondent on 24.9.2001 after complying with the provisions under Rule 26 of the Rules, it is seen from the counter affidavit of the second respondent that on scrutiny, the Assistant Returning Officer, who was appointed to conduct the election of Vellakavi Panchayat, Kodaikanal Panchayat Union, found some defect in the nomination papers. It is also specifically stated that the petitioner was also not present at the time of scrutiny of his nomination paper, hence this nomination was rejected after making the following endorsement in the nomination paper: Though the said assertion has been made in the counter affidavit of the second respondent and the same having been duly served on the counsel for the petitioner even as early as on 27.11.2001, the petitioner has not filed reply affidavit controverting those factual assertion. It is also clear that apart from the rejection of the petitioner’s nomination, the nomination of the other candidate, namely, Sudamani was also rejected due to some defect. Except the third respondent, there was no other person to contest the election. In such a circumstance, the Returning Officer elected the third respondent as unopposed and the same was declared and it is specifically stated that the third respondent is functioning as the President of Vellakavi Panchayat. 8. Now I shall consider whether the case of the petitioner that he was present in the office of the Second respondent until 5.30 p.m. on 3.10.2001, and that the Returning Officer made a statement to the effect that his nomination is in order etc., can be considered by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the petitioner has effective remedy by way of filing Election Petitioner before the competent Court. The learned Special Government Pleader has very much relied on Art.243(o)(b) of the Constitution of India, Sec.258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 and Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Election) Rules, 1995. “Art.243-A. x x x x x Art.243-B. Constitution of Panchayats: (1) There shall be constituted in every state, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this part. (2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (1), Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs.” Disputes regarding election is dealt with in Sec.258 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994. “258. Election petitions: (1) No election of a president or a chairman or a member shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the district judge of the district in which the panchayat is situated, within fifteen days from the date of the publication of the result of the election under this Act.” The grounds for declaring elections to be void are detailed in Sec.259 of the said Act. Rule 122 of the said Rules specifically bars any petition challenging the election held under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act except by way of election petition in accordance with Sec.258 of the Act. "Rule 122. Election petitions: Save as otherwise provided, no election held under the Act, shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with Sec.258 of the Act or the rules, to the District Judge under whose jurisdiction the Panchayat or the District Planning Committee or other statutory committees fall, by any candidate or elector against the candidate who has been declared to have been duly elected." Art.243(o)(b) of the Constitution specifically bars questioning the election of a Panchayat except by an Election Petition presented to the authority notified and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a state. Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act is a statute enacted by the State Legislature. Sec.258 of the act specifically states that except by an election petition presented to the District Judge of the District in which the panchayat is situated, within the time prescribed the election of a president or a chairman or a member shall be called in question. This is also reiterated in Rule 122 of the Rules. Sec.258 of the act specifically states that except by an election petition presented to the District Judge of the District in which the panchayat is situated, within the time prescribed the election of a president or a chairman or a member shall be called in question. This is also reiterated in Rule 122 of the Rules. In the light of the specific bar under the Constitution as well as statutory provisions in the Act and the Rules referred to above, I hold that the present writ petition challenging the action of the second respondent in rejecting his nomination paper in not maintainable and the proper remedy for the petitioner would be to file a separate Election Petition before the concerned District Judge under Sec.258 of the Act. 9. Mr.M.K.HIdayathullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Kalidas v. Returning Officer, Vadodara, A.I.R. 1981 Guj. 195, contended that the writ petition is maintainable. No doubt, in that decision, the learned single Judge has held that the Returning Officer fails to discharge his function if he does not make a summary inquiry under Rule 15 of Gujarat Taluk and District Panchayat Election Rules, 1975 even when the attention of the Returning Officer is drawn to the fact. The learned Judge has held that in rejecting the nomination form on that ground he commits manifest error of law and a writ petition is maintainable. The learned Judge has has also held that the remedy under the Act would not be a bar. In the light of the factual assertion made by the second respondent, namely, the nomination paper of the petitioner was defective and he was not present for rectification and in the light of the statutory provision under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act and the Rules, I am unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohindar Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohindar Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851. In para 122, their Lordships have held that, "122....If, therefore, during the process of election, at an intermediate or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration of the results on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law. The appellants, then, will not be without a remedy to question every step in the electoral process and every order that has been passed in the process of the election including the countermanding of the earlier poll. In other words, when the appellants question the elections after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, the election Court will be able to entertain their objection with regard to the order of the Election Commission countermanding the earlier poll, and the whole matter will be at large. If, for example, the elections Court comes to the conclusion that the earlier poll has been wrongly cancelled, or the impugned order of the Election Commission is otherwise invalid, it will be entitled to set aside the election on the basis of the fresh poll and will have power to breathe life into the counter-manded poll and to make appropriate directions and orders in accordance with law. There is, therefore, no foundation for a grievance that the appellants will be without any remedy if their writ application is dismissed..." It is clear from the said decision that in a matter like this, the only remedy for the aggrieved person is to file a separate Election Petition before the appropriate Court. It is not disputed that the Election Court will be able to grant all appropriate reliefs and the dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice him. 10. In the light of what is stated above, I hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable; accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. It is not disputed that the Election Court will be able to grant all appropriate reliefs and the dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice him. 10. In the light of what is stated above, I hold that the present writ petition is not maintainable; accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. It is made clear that if the petitioner so desires, it would be open to him to challenge the action of the second respondent in rejecting his nomination papers by way of an Election Petition before the competent Court. W.P.M.P. No.30494 of 2001 is closed.