HON’BLE SRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL (SR) No. 67345 OF 2006 Between: A. Rama Mohana Raja Rao ……Appellant And Sri Kilaparthi Venkata Leela Krishna and another ……Respondents :: JUDGMENT :: Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Dated: 27-06-2006 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ This appeal is directed against order dated 22-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.15625 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.12578 of 2006 whereby he directed the appellant and respondent No. 2 to allow the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) to contest election for the membership of Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency, Parimella, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. In the writ petition filed by him, respondent No.1 questioned the legality and correctness of order dated 19-6-2006 passed by Returning Officer, Pentapadu whereby his nomination paper was rejected. He also challenged the legality of order dated 20-6-2006 passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, who dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Returning Officer. On a consideration of the averments contained in the affidavit the writ petitioner (respondent No.1), the learned Single Judge passed the order which is under challenge in this appeal. The appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 questioning the rejection of his nomination paper is not maintainable in view of the express bar contained in Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In our opinion, it is not necessary to record a detailed order because the issue raised in the appeal has already been decided vide detailed order dated 23-6-2006 passed in W.A. (SR) No.65599 of 2006 – The State Election Commission v. M. Rajendra Prasad and others. In that case, the Court considered the appellant’s challenge to an interlocutory order similar to the one impugned in this appeal and held that rejection of nomination paper constitutes an election dispute and that in view of the bar contained in Article 243-O of the Constitution, the High Court cannot directly entertain writ petition under Article 226 questioning the alleged wrongful rejection of nomination paper. The Court further held that the aggrieved person has to first avail statutory remedy by filing election petition under the law enacted by the State Legislature. He/she can file writ petition only if the order of the adjudicatory authority is adverse to him/her. In our opinion, the present case is fully covered by the aforementioned judgment and the appeal is liable to be disposed of in similar terms. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Order dated 22-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No.15625 of 2006 in Writ Petition No.12578 of 2006 is set aside with the direction that the detailed reasons recorded in order dated 23-6-2006 passed in W.A. (SR) No.65599 of 2006 shall be read as part of this order. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J June 27, 2006 Ks / svs