Election validity challenged where an interim stay prevented voting and materially altered the result, making Article 226 relief appropriate.

An election to the office of Pradhan was liable to be set aside where an interim stay in earlier writ proceedings prevented two nominated members from voting and materially altered the result. The Court found the writ proceedings had not been bona fide and had been used to obtain an ex parte order that directly affected the electoral outcome. Because the excluded members would otherwise have voted, the successful candidate's victory was attributable to the court order. The Court also held that, in the absence of a statutory election forum capable of examining the validity of the High Court's own order, relief under Article 226 was the proper remedy. Fresh election was permitted under the Rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the election of the Pradhan was liable to be set aside because the interim order obtained in earlier writ proceedings prevented two nominated members from voting, materially affected the result, and could be remedied in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The interim stay obtained in the earlier writ petition restrained two nominated members from participating in the election. The Court found that the writ proceedings were not bona fide and had been used to secure an ex parte order that altered the electoral outcome. Since the disabled members would otherwise have voted, the result was materially affected and the elected candidate's victory was directly attributable to the court order. The Court further noted that there was no statutory election forum under the Act or the Rules that could go behind the validity of the High Court's own order, making supervisory relief under Article 226 the proper remedy.

Conclusion: The election was not validly conducted and was liable to be set aside; fresh election was permitted to be held according to the Rules.

---