Special statutory remedy in election disputes bars parallel writ jurisdiction where tribunal process is already engaged.

A High Court should ordinarily decline writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in an election dispute where the governing rules provide a special and efficacious statutory remedy through an election petition and tribunal. Because the election rules created a dedicated forum, imposed a short limitation period, and an election petition on the same subject was already pending, entertaining the writ petition would have bypassed the prescribed mechanism and undermined the statutory scheme. The dispute was required to be pursued before the election tribunal rather than through parallel writ proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the validity of an election when the election rules provided a specific remedy by election petition.

Analysis: The election rules framed by the Bar Council provided for the constitution of an election tribunal, a short period of limitation for election petitions, and a special mechanism for deciding election disputes. An election petition covering the same subject matter was already pending before the tribunal. In such circumstances, the existence of a specific and efficacious statutory remedy, particularly in an election matter, required the High Court to exercise restraint and not bypass the prescribed procedure. Entertaining the writ petition would defeat the limitation scheme and undermine the statutory forum created for such disputes.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in entertaining the writ petition, and the challenge to the election should have been left to the statutory election tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the writ proceedings were wrongly entertained despite the available statutory election remedy, and the dispute was required to be decided by the tribunal under the election rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special and efficacious statutory remedy for an election dispute exists and is already invoked, the High Court should ordinarily decline to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

---