ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J. The petitioners are the residents of Amingad ~llage with their names found in the voter’s list, have presented this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for a writ of Quo Warranto to oust the second respondent from the post of member of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat. 2. In the election to the membership of the first respondent-Grama Panchayat, the second respondent on 26/11/2001 having filed his nomination to contest the election from Ward No.1 reserved for BCM ‘A’ category, was duly declared elected, while in the subsequent election held on 16/02/2005, the second respondent filed his nomination for membership to the first respondent-Gram Panchayat from Ward No.1, reserved for BCM ‘B’, category, and was also declared elected on 1-3-2005. 3. The petitioners, residents and voters of the village within the territorial jurisdiction of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat, having noticed that the second respondent, in the first election held in the year 2001, filed a caste certificate declaring him to belong to HCM ‘A’ category, filed yet another caste certificate along with the nomination application in the election held in the year 2005 declaring him to belong to BCM ‘B’ category and hence filed a representation to the Tahsildar-4th respondent, who after enquiry by order dated 22/03/2005 cancelled the caste certificate declaring the second respondent as belonging to the BCM ‘B’ category. 4. Armed with the order dated 22/03/2005 Annexure “A” of the Tahsildar and alleging that the second respondent masquerading as a person belonging to BCM ‘B’ category got elected from the ward reserved for the said category constituting a violation of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 and also a fraud on the constitution, have invoked the writ jurisdiction. 5. The petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondents. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light fthe admitted fact of cancellation of the caste certificate issued to the second respondent, by order Annexure’ A’, to the 2nd respondent is disentitled to hold the reserved office of member of the Grampanchayat, in support of which the learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of KURAPATI MARIA DAS Vs. M/S DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA SAMAJAM AND OTHERS, AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 330. 7. M/S DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA SAMAJAM AND OTHERS, AIR 2007 Andhra Pradesh 330. 7. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the second respondent contends that the petition is not maintainable since the election dispute that was raised by the defeated candidate was dismissed as withdrawn and in view of the Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India the declaration of the results of the election of the petitioner as a member of Grarn Panchayat, cannot be called in question in the Writ Petition. According to the learned Counsel, the relief of Quo Warranto would infact tentamount to act of declaring the election of the petitioner as void. 8. The petitioners undipsutedly being the residents and voters of Amingad village with their names in the voters’ list, entitled to exercise their franchise in the election to the membership of the first respondent-Gram panchayat, cannot but be said to be aggrieved, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Question as to whether the second respondent belongs to BCM ‘A’ or BCM ‘B’ category is no more in controversy in view of the order dated 22/03/2005. Annexure “A” of the Tahsildar, cancelling the caste certificate issued to the second respondent declaring him belonging to BCM ‘B’ category. This order having not been questioned in an appeal proceedings by the second respondent, is final and binding. 10. The fact that Ward No.1 was reserved for BCM ‘B’ category in the election to the membership of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat held during the year 2005 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the second respondent contested from the said reserved constituency by filing a caste certificate declaring him to belong to BCM ‘B’ category, which has since been cancelled. 11. Article 16 of the Constitution of India recognizes the economic social backwardness of SC, ST and other weaker classes leading to specific provisions in respect of the said classes. Reservation of seats are provided for SC, ST and weaker classes. In catena decigion of the Apex Court it is held that object of Clause 1 of Article 341 has provided preferential rights by way of protection to the members of the Schedule Caste having regard to the economic and conditional backwardness from which they suffer. 12. Reservation of seats are provided for SC, ST and weaker classes. In catena decigion of the Apex Court it is held that object of Clause 1 of Article 341 has provided preferential rights by way of protection to the members of the Schedule Caste having regard to the economic and conditional backwardness from which they suffer. 12. Section 5 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides for constitution of Gram Panchayat and empowers the State Election Commission to reserve seats for SC and ST and persons belonging fo backward class falling under category “A” and “B”. It is in the exercise of the said power that Ward No.1 in the first respondent Gram Panchayat was reserved for BCM ‘B’ category in the elections held in the year 2005. Reservation, therefore is a part of constitutional scheme with the object of betterment of backward classes. Therefore, if a person who does not belong to a particular backward class for which the elective office, is reserved, and masquerades, as a person belonging to said category and gets elected to the reserved office, it cannot but be said that such an Act not only constitutes violation of statutory provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act but also a fraud on the Constitution. 13. The petitioners have, established beyond doubt that the, secpnd respondent who belongs to BCM ‘A’ category played a fraud by making a false claim that he belongs to BCM ‘B’ category and got elected as a member of the first respondent-Gram Panchayat from Ward No.1 which was reserved for BCM ‘B’ category. 14. Although Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution of India prohibits calling in question any election to the Municipality except by an Election Petition as prescribed under made by the legislature of the State, in the instant case by filing an application under Section 19 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 nevertheless the second respondent having usurped the membership of the Gram Panchayat reserved for BCM ‘B’ category by using a false caste certificate, which carne to light after an enquiry and-cancellation by order dated 23/02/ 2005 Annexure-”A” of the Tahsildar, the election dispute under Section 19 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, cannot be said to be an effective alternative remedy to the constitutional remedy of quo warranto, which could be issued only by the superior Court. 15. 15. In identical circumstances, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kurapati Maria Das’s case supra, observed that bar to a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to relegate the Writ Petitioners to invoke alternative remedy of filing election petition under the relevant statute. The Lordships of the High Court having considered all earlier pronouncement of the Apex Court, held that writ under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable. Applying the same to the facts of this case, the contentions of the second respondent must necessarily fail. 16. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the petition filed for issue of writ of Quo Waranto against the second respondent is not barred by Article 243-ZG of the Act. 17. In the result, this petition is allowed. A writ of quo Warranto shall ensue ousting the second respondent from the office of the membership reserved for BCM ‘B’ category in the first respondent-Gram Panchayat. Accordingly, revision fails and dismissed.