JUDGMENT: (Per Sri Justice B Prakash Rao) The appellant herein is the first respondent in the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, where the writ petitioner by way of writ of certiorari sought to assail the orders dated 11.7.2007 passed in O.P. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the Election Tribunal cum Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, allowing the Election Petition ex- parte. Briefly stated facts are that the first respondent herein is elected as a member of the Mandal Praja Parishad of Valigonda Mandal in the elections held on 28.6.2006. Assailing the same, the appellant herein filed O.P. No. 49 of 2006 on the file of the Election Tribunal cum Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, on certain allegations. The contesting respondents in the said O.P. were set ex-parte. The appellant herein examined himself as P.W.1 and marked documents Ex.A-1 (nomination deposit) and Ex.A-2 (Notifying the counting place). The Election Tribunal considering the matter, allowed the election petition by orders dated 11.7.2007. Assailing the said orders, the first respondent herein filed writ petition No.9862 of 2008 on various grounds including the ground that the very election petition does not contain any specific ground or any allegations in regard to corrupt practices, as required under the law. The learned Single Judge by taking into consideration, the provisions under section 273 and 268 (1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in Respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads ) Rules, 1995 held that having regard to the subsequent rules contemplated thereunder in regard to the corrupt practices and same being required to be specifically raised and traversed with all the details in particular, as normally held under the Election law in regard to the pleadings, there being no such material allegations or facts alleged in respect of any practice much less corrupt practices, has been specifically traversed, allowed the writ petition. Hence, the present writ appeal. Hence, the present writ appeal. Mr.A.Anand Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having regard to the fact that the orders impugned are setting aside the ex- parte orders passed in O.P. 49 of 2006, therefore the matter should have been relegated to the Tribunal for disposal afresh on merits and this Court could not have appreciated on merits in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, Mr B Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that since there being no specific ground or averment against the elected candidate as required under law and there is no such material, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the order does not warrant any interference. Further, since no remedy available like first appeal, this Court has ample powers. Having considered the submissions, the point for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can go into the merits. As far as the prima facie satisfaction of the requirement as contemplated for election petition, it is now well established that under the Election law, if the Election Petition is filed assailing an election, necessarily each and every ground of corrupt practices or collusion whatsoever has to be specifically taken, further each such ground should contain all the details and particulars. This requirement is held to be mandatory by this Court as well as by the Apex Court on more than one occasion. Further, it is also held that failure to comply with such requirement, virtually the very petition itself can be thrown out as not maintainable. There is absolutely no distinction in regard to the other general laws, vis--vis the provisions contained in A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that no such specific grounds have been raised nor any details or material particulars are furnished, set aside the impugned orders passed on 11.7.2007. Therefore, for a perusal thereof, we called upon the appellant counsel to file the main election petition, which was filed before the Election Tribunal. On a scrutiny, we are also satisfied that there exists no specific ground or averment of any corrupt practices nor any particulars or details were given. Therefore, for a perusal thereof, we called upon the appellant counsel to file the main election petition, which was filed before the Election Tribunal. On a scrutiny, we are also satisfied that there exists no specific ground or averment of any corrupt practices nor any particulars or details were given. The only allegation made is to the effect that "The Ruling party in the State adopted all illegal and corrupt practices by winning over the election staff in counting". Except this bald allegation, no such specific allegations were made against the successful candidate in the election. In the absence of the same, we are satisfied that the very petition as rightly held by the learned Single Judge is not maintainable. Coming to the question of scope of this Court to go into merits in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is not in dispute that as against the orders of the election Tribunal, there is no appeal or any other remedy provided under the statute. Therefore, the aggrieved party has to approach this Court by way of writ of certiorari. In such proceedings, necessarily, unlike a regular appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code as against an exparte decree, the Court can look into the prima facie existence of a case to warrant interference and to see if such case has been made out from out of the evidence or material available on record, including whether any case is set up in the pleadings to rest its findings thereon. Hence, if no such material or pleading is found, the Court can interfere with such conclusions. Therefore, the objection that the Court could not have gone into merits is not sustainable. In the present case, the first respondent herein sought for writ of Certiorari, where this Court can also go into all such questions prima facie as to any case is made out from the allegations contained in the main election petition. Such an exercise has been done by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we do not find any error in the orders of the learned Single Judge. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.