Krishna Iyer, J. - (1.) These tow appeals by special leave relate to the same subject-matter, namely, the validity of the election to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh of twenty returned candidates. We are not going into the grounds of the challenge nor do we propose to express any view thereon since we are disposed to allow the appeals on the short ground that the High Court fell into a grievous error in entertaining the writ petition.
(2.) Briefly the facts are as follows. The election to the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh tool place under the Indian Advocates Act. There are rules framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh with the approval of the Bar Council of India regulating the disputes regarding election. There is specific provision regarding the constitution of election tribunals, the period of limitation within which election petitions should be filed and other connected matters. Rule 31 of the Election Rules framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh governs the situation. The powers of the tribunal so far as we are able to see are wide Moreover, Rule 31 (4) states: "All disputes arising under the above sub-rule shall be decided by a Tribunal to be known as an Election Tribunal .......
(3.) It is represented before us that within the period of limitation prescribed by R. 31 (1). viz., 15 days, an election petition has been filed before the Tribunal constituted under the rules. Notwithstanding the pendency of such an election petition, four months after the period of limitation had expired for filing an election petition, two voters (one of whom was a defeated candidate) moved the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election. The High Court was confronted by the argument from the respondents side that in the presence of an equally efficacious remedy it was not proper for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. However, after noticing the decision which lays down that when there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. the Court nevertheless interfered. The reasoning which prevailed with it was in its own words: "We are of the view that where the entire election is challenged an election petition would not be an appropriate remedy. In any case, it cannot be considered as an equally efficacious remedy." Earlier the same court had held that election disputes whether they related to one candidate or more than one would be covered by the election rules and in particular Rule 31. Having held so the somewhat inconsistent attitude expressed in the observations quoted passes our comprehension.;