Post-election remedy bars Article 226 interference with ongoing election process over alleged symbol allotment irregularities.

Where election law provides a post-election petition as the statutory remedy, the High Court should ordinarily not interfere under Article 226 during an ongoing election process, including at an intermediate stage involving alleged improper allotment of symbols. The governing principle is that election proceedings should not be interrupted before results are declared when the alleged irregularity can be examined by the election court in a subsequent petition. On that basis, interference with the errata notification was considered inappropriate and the writ remedy was held to be unavailable in the facts described.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with an ongoing election process at an intermediate stage on the ground of alleged improper allotment of symbols, when the election law provides a post-election remedy by election petition.

Analysis: The election dispute arose during the process of election to a local body office, before declaration of results. The governing rules provided that an election could be called in question only by an election petition after the election, and that disputes involving non-compliance with the Act or the Rules were to be examined by the election court. The Court applied the settled principle that election proceedings should ordinarily not be interrupted at an intermediate stage and that grievances arising during the electoral process should be left to the special statutory remedy, especially where the impugned action, even if erroneous, could be examined in an election petition. The Court held that the availability of an effective alternative remedy, together with the policy of expeditious completion of elections, made interference under Article 226 inappropriate in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have quashed the errata notification under Article 226, and the writ petition should have been left to the statutory election remedy. The interference was therefore unjustified and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute provides an effective post-election remedy, the High Court should ordinarily decline to interfere under Article 226 in the midst of an ongoing election process, even for alleged irregularities in symbol allotment.

---