As per case facts, Respondent No. 1's nomination for Zila Panchayat Member was cancelled by the Returning Officer, leading to the appellant being declared elected unopposed. Respondent No. 1's Writ ... Petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. Subsequently, the High Court Division Bench, in an intra-court appeal, stayed the Single Judge's order and directed allowing Respondent No. 1 to participate. This decision led to the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether the High Court's intervention in the electoral process, especially after the appellant was declared elected unopposed, violated the constitutional bar under Article 243-O, which mandates that election disputes be resolved via an election petition. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court manifestly erred by interfering with the ongoing election process. It reaffirmed that Article 243-O precludes judicial intervention when an efficacious alternative remedy, such as an election petition under the relevant State statute, is available. The Court stressed strict adherence to the statutory framework for election grievances.