ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. Though the petition is listed for 'hearing on interlocutory application', the petition itself is taken up for final disposal, with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the notice dated 29-11-2012 which is impugned at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondents 1, 2 and 3 to declare the petitioner as the President of Hosanagara Taluk Panchayat, pursuant to the election meeting held on 3-11-2012. 3. At the outset, it is to be stated that though the issue relates only to the meeting notice for elections of Adhyaksha and the same being assailed in the instant petition, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respective learned Counsel appearing for the respondents have been heard elaborately in the matter so as to consider as to whether interference is required by this Court in the light of the second prayer. 4. The case of the petitioner as put forth by the learned Senior Counsel is that the elections for the second term as Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat was Scheduled initially by the issue of notice dated 16-10-2012 fixing the meeting on 3-11-2012. The calendar of events for the said meeting was fixed as required under the Rules. The proceedings on 3-11-2012 did not conclude and the meeting was thereafter adjourned. Subsequently, the meeting notice dated 29-11-2012 was issued scheduling the meeting on 26-12-2012. In the said meeting, the commencement of the meeting was indicated from the stage of filing of the 'nomination papers and thereafter meeting was to be held at 1.00 p.m. In that regard, it is contended that when by the proceedings dated 3-11-2012, there were only two candidates fur the post of Adhyaksha and the candidature of the 5th respondent herein was to be rejected for the purpose of the original caste certificate not being produced, the sole candidate was the petitioner herein. In that circumstance, the Rules 3-A to 3-E of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Taluk Panchayat) Rules, 1994 relating to the election to the post of Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat is referred to indicate that in such circumstance, the sale candidate would have to be declared as the elected candidate and the question of postponing the election would not arise. The contention put forth in that regard is that when the scrutiny of the nomination papers was at the commencement of the meeting after nominations are filed, in such circumstance, there was occasion for postponing the meeting itself. 5. Be that as it may, even if the meeting postponed and was to be convened subsequently on 26-12-2012, the stage could not have been fixed for the purpose of accepting the nominations, but should have proceeded from the stage after scrutiny of nominations by holding the meeting based on the valid nominations which was already on record. Therefore, the subsequent meeting is not justified is the contention. Even in that regard to contend as to the only circumstance under which the postponement could be made and the manner of recommencement, the Rules 28, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 relating to the elections to the members has been referred only as an indication of the circumstance when the meeting could be postponed and that it should be recommenced. As such, in the instant case, it is contended that the meeting in fact at the first instance should not have been postponed. When the petitioner was the only candidate, he should have been declared elected on that day itself or the subsequent meeting should have been only for that purpose. The stage for nomination papers should not have been indicated in the notice. Insofar as the contention as to whether the instant petition could be maintained, the learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Katagihalli Anandappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1995(2) Kar. L.J. 512 (DB). The contention therefore is that in such circumstance, when the Returning Officer has conducted the proceedings on 3-11-2012, that in itself was sufficient to indicate that the petitioner was to be declared as elected on the same date. The proceedings relating to the allegations made and the matter being pending in a different forum, should not come in the way is the contention. 6. The contesting respondent 5 has filed objection statement disputing the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner. The proceedings relating to the allegations made and the matter being pending in a different forum, should not come in the way is the contention. 6. The contesting respondent 5 has filed objection statement disputing the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioner. Insofar as the aspect relating to the proceedings held on 3-11-2012, it is the case of the 5th respondent that she was in possession of the caste certificate which was required for the purpose of establishing that the 5th respondent belongs to BCM (B) category, but, the same had been torn off by the petitioner. In such circumstance, there was commotion and therefore the Returning Officer had postponed the election, which was justified. When the subsequent meeting was convened, the appropriate course was to provide opportunity to the 5th respondent also to file nomination with supporting certificate and proceed further in the matter. It is therefore contended that the very circumstance under which the petitioner has approached this Court would indicate that the petitioner having accepted the earlier position of the postponement of the meeting, could not have subsequently approached this Court only when the meeting notice was issued. It is also the contention on behalf of the 5th respondent that both in respect of the posts of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha, the elections were postponed and fresh notices had been issued. Subsequently insofar as the Upadhyaksha, the meeting has been held and the different yardstick cannot be applied for the post of Adhyaksha. In that circumstance, it is contended that the present prayer made in the petition cannot be granted and the authorities were justified in issuing notice providing opportunity to all the interested persons to file their nominations and take part in the democratic process. 7. Learned Government Advocate would point out that the affidavits filed by the Returning Officer and the Executive Officer are only stating the factual position. Even as per the affidavit of the Returning Officer, respondent 5 had filed a photocopy of the caste certificate. It is in that circumstance the original was required to be produced, but respondent 5 had put forth the contention that the petitioner had torn-off the certificate and this aspect of the matter in any event has been reported to the higher authorities and also complaints have been filed in this regard with the jurisdictional police. It is in that circumstance the original was required to be produced, but respondent 5 had put forth the contention that the petitioner had torn-off the certificate and this aspect of the matter in any event has been reported to the higher authorities and also complaints have been filed in this regard with the jurisdictional police. It is therefore contended that the subsequent notice is justified and the same does not call for interference. 8. In the light of the rival contentions, in a normal circumstance, in respect of a subsequent notice which is issued, if the petitioner had any grievance, the petitioner should have been relegated to an election dispute after allowing the meeting to proceed and if the petitioner thereafter had any dispute with regard to the same. It is no doubt true that the decision referred to by the learned Senior Counsel would allow consideration in the circumstances stated therein. Merely because the petitioner has not been relegated to the election dispute and the instant petition is considered, the question would still remain open as to whether the notice impugned in the instant petition would call for interference and whether this Court should declare the petitioner to be the elected President of the Taluk Panchayat. 9. In that regard, the fact that the date indicated in the notice has elapsed is evident. However, the date had elapsed in view of the fact that this Court had stayed the notice and prevented the further proceedings. Insofar as Upadhyaksha, election was held on the said day. Even if that be so, if this Court does not grant the second prayer sought for by the petitioner and upholds the action of the Returning Officer in re-notifying, it would still be open for the Returning Officer to re-notify the election. 10. As an aid to consider this aspect of the matter, reliance has been placed heavily by both the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Counsel for respondent 5 on the proceedings which was held on 3-11-2012. The manner of recording made has been commented upon. However, in my view, the same is not relevant. But, what is required to be noticed is the proceedings that had taken place and the circumstance under which the meeting had been postponed on the said date. The manner of recording made has been commented upon. However, in my view, the same is not relevant. But, what is required to be noticed is the proceedings that had taken place and the circumstance under which the meeting had been postponed on the said date. The fact that the petitioner and respondent 5 were the only two candidates for the post of Adhyaksha which had been reserved for BCM (B) is not in dispute. The issue however is about the certificate required to be filed by the 5th respondent. The fact that the petitioner had filed the requisite certificate along with the nomination is also not in dispute. From the affidavit filed by the Returning Officer, it is clear that respondent 5 had filed a photocopy of the Caste Certificate, but not the original. This is in fact the crux of the matter since respondent 5 contends that the petitioner was an instrumental in destroying the original caste certificate which was available with the respondent 5 to be produced along with the nomination papers. It is in that circumstance, the Returning Officer has also stated that the respondent 5 had requested that the photocopy be accepted. Further, with regard to the said incident, the complaints have been lodged with the higher authorities and the police is also evident from the papers which have been filed along with the petition. This would further disclose that the complaints have been lodged both against the petitioner as well as respondent 5, though it is pointed out that the complaint lodged against the petitioner is subsequent to the complaint which had been filed against respondent 5. The fact however remains that the issue relating to the production of the Caste Certificate and destruction at the hands of the petitioner is a seriously disputed question where the necessary proceedings are to be held in the appropriate forum. 11. However, in such circumstance, when at the first instance, respondent 5 had filed a photocopy of the Caste Certificate and the said incident had taken place, it is not one such case where it could be held that respondent 5 did not possess the Caste Certificate at all and there were no reason for the respondent 5 to act detrimental to her own interest by withholding the original, if it was required. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view and also when there is a serious dispute with regard to the manner in which the non-consideration of the nomination of respondent 5 was attempted by the petitioner and there are serious allegations in that regard, it would be difficult for this Court while deciding a writ petition to accept the contention of the petitioner that as on 3-11-2012, he was the sole eligible candidate whose nomination should have been accepted and he should have been declared as the un-opposed candidate. In a circumstance when there are such disputed questions of fact and the Returning Officer as well as the Executive Officer had also taken steps with regard to reporting the matter to the higher authorities and the Police, the only other course for completing the democratic process could have been only by holding a fresh election by providing opportunity to the parties to bring forth their nomination in accordance with law and thereafter conduct the elections. Hence, the Rules referred to by the learned Senior Counsel would not be of assistance in the instant facts. 12. Therefore, if these aspects of the matter are kept in perspective, in my opinion, the Returning Officer had not committed an error in issuing a fresh notice to begin the election from the stage of filing of the nominations since if the nominations were filed by the petitioner as well as respondent 5 supported by the documents, there would have been an appropriate opportunity for the members to elect the appropriate person as Adhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat. Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, where there are serious disputes and where the criminal complaints and counter complaints have been lodged and the matter is pending, the most appropriate course is to once again allow the parties to file their nominations and then hold the election. 13. Hence, in my opinion, the prayer (b) made in the instant petition cannot be granted. Since the date fixed by the earlier notice at Annexure-D had lapsed, the Returning Officer shall now issue fresh Calendar of Events, permit the eligible elected members to file their nomination papers and hold the elections in accordance with law. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No costs.