Municipal election disputes should ordinarily be pursued through statutory election petitions, not writ proceedings.

The appeals challenged a Single Judge’s order concerning the election for Chairman of the Municipal Board, Khatushyamji.

Polling was scheduled for 21 September 2026, but one elected councillor did not vote that day.

The State Election Commission directed that the election continue on 25 September to enable all councillors to participate.

In a writ petition challenging that direction, the Single Judge quashed the Commission’s order and directed the Returning Officer to count the votes cast on 21 September and declare the result, while preserving the remedy of an election petition.

The councillor affected by the order was not impleaded in the writ proceedings.

The result was subsequently declared and an election certificate issued on 26 September 2026.

Whether the High Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction with the conduct of a municipal election where the governing law provides an election-petition remedy.

Whether the Single Judge’s order should be set aside because the affected councillor was not impleaded in the writ proceedings.

Article 243ZA vests the State Election Commission with superintendence, direction and control over municipal elections, while Article 243ZG(b) provides that a municipal election may be questioned only by an election petition presented in the prescribed manner.

Applying the principles in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64, and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405, the Court treated “election” as encompassing the process from its commencement to declaration of results.

Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303, and Ashok Kumar v. Election Commission of India, (2000) 8 SCC 216, support judicial restraint where intervention would interrupt or protract an election, while recognising a limited scope for intervention that facilitates its completion.

Sections 31 and 32 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 provide the statutory election-petition mechanism for challenging an election.

The Court held that the Single Judge had not finally determined the disputed facts concerning the councillor’s alleged abduction, her absence from the poll, the legality of the Commission’s direction or the validity of the subsequent voting; those matters could be examined in an election petition, where evidence could be considered.

The Court also found that non-impleadment did not, in these circumstances, require the order to be set aside: the order had not finally adjudicated the councillor’s substantive electoral rights and the statutory remedy remained available.

Given that the election had concluded and a result had been declared, the statutory election remedy was the appropriate forum for challenging its validity.

The Court found no jurisdictional error warranting interference with the Single Judge’s order and left open, for determination in an election petition, the allegations concerning abduction, the validity of the Commission’s order, the exercise of powers under the Election Rules, the voting conducted on 25 September and the ultimate validity of the election.