An election cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 but only by way of an election petition

The Supreme Court in the matter of Gulabrao Ananda Patil vs. State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal No. 1623 OF 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO. 20814 OF 2019) decided on 14.02.2020 held that the only remedy available against any wrong done during the process of election is by way of an election petition after the election is over.
Facts
The appellant was disqualified from contesting elections for a period of five years in the year 2014 after he failed to furnish his election expenditure within a period of 30 days following the declaration of the Panchayat Samiti Elections. In the year 2017, the appellant submitted his nomination for the post of Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat elections. The said nomination was objected to by another candidate Shri Pradip Nimba Patil however, the Returning Officer dismissed the objection on the ground that the disqualification was applicable only for election of Zila Parishads and Panchayat Samiti and not Gram Panchayat. Several writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the said order of the Returning Officer and seeking setting aside of the election of the appellant who was declared as the returned candidate. While the other reliefs were not granted, the Bombay High Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Returning Officer whereby he rejected the objections raised to the nomination of the appellant.
Issue
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is an appropriate remedy to challenge an election
Ratio
The Apex Court relied on the judgement reported as N. P. Punnuswami v. The Returning Officer and reiterated that the only remedy provided was by way of election petition to be presented after the election was over and even the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during the intermediate period. It was held that the ground of rejection of nomination paper cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. It further held that under the election law, the rejection of a nomination paper can be used as a ground to call election in question before the Authority prescribed by law in terms of Article 329 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court further examined the provisions relevant to an election of Gram Panchayat and observed that Article 243-O of the Constitution of India provides that no election to any panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as provided for by or under any law made under the legislature of the State.
The Apex Court reiterated the law by revisiting the judgements in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. where it was held that Article 329 of the Constitution of India starts with a non obstante clause that notwithstanding contained in this Constitution, no election to either house shall be called in question except by an election petition. Therefore, Article 226 of the Constitution of India stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election. It was held that there is a remedy for every wrong done during the election in progress although it is postponed to the post-election stage. The Election Tribunal has powers to give relief to an aggrieved candidate.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that in view of an efficacious alternative remedy available and explicit restraint in terms of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. The Court further cautioned the High Courts not to interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration of the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy contemplated by the statute.