PETITIONERS 2. 2. 3. A Sewa Sahakari Samlti Jhironi, Teshil Kawardha, DistricS Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, through it's President Shri Ajay Kumar Char'drawanshi, Son of FVIayaram Chandrawanshi, aged about 48 years, resident of Jhironi, Post Jhironi, District Kabirdhar", Chhattisgarh. Sewa Sahakari Samiti Bambhni, Teshil Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhaaisgarh, through it's President Santosh Kumar, son of Shrt Hukum Singh Kaushik, aged aboui 36 years, resident of viliage and post Bambhni, Teshi! Kawardha, Distrtet Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. Versus Chhattisgarh iti iaya, DKS the Societies, Raipur, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, District Kabirdham, Chhattssgarh. Retuming Officer, Primary Credit Co- operative Socisty, Ka'.vardha, Sahateri Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Rajnandgasn, Tetisll and District Rajnandgaon, ChhaSisgarh. (Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution Singte Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Shri ,iimrito Das, counsei for the petitionere Shri Vivek Sharma, Panet Lawver for the Si (Passed on this 17th day of Novensber, 2008) By this petition, the petitioners have made a grievance ttiat the names of the petitioners were wrongfuiiy deieted from the voter iist for election to the Board of Directors in the Agrteuitura! Ptimary Credit Society Maryadit. r//" -• -s^a^ "•<^- 2 2) AdmittedSy, the election was he!d on 27-10-2007 and the resutts have been declared thereof. !t is weii settied principle of Saw that tf there is a provision for election petition, no writ petition is maintainable. 3) ln the matter of N.P.Ponnuswami v. The Raturning Offieer, Namakka! Constitutency, Manakkai, Sefem Dist, and otfters a six iudges Bench ofthe Hon'ble Suorsme Court, obsen/ed as under: "12. It is now weil-recognized thatwhere a right or iiabiiity is creafod by a statute whfeh givss a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statutory o"!y must bs avaited of. This ruie was stated with great ciarity by Wittes J. in Wfolver Hampton New Water Wofks Co. •/. Hawkesford, (1859) 8 C.B. (N.S.) 336, st p. 356 in the foiiowing passage; "There are three classes of cas^ in whieh a Itability may be estabiished founded upon statute. One is, v/here thsrs was a iiability existing at common iaw, and that iiability 's affirmed by a statute which glves a speciai and pecuiiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there, uniess the statate contains words which expressiy or by necessary implication exclude ihe common law remedy, the party suing has his eiection to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second ciass of cases Is, where the statute gives the right to sue mere'y, but provides no particutar form of remedy: there, the party can oniy Droceed bv action at common law. But there is a thlrd dass, viz. where a iiability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at fhe same time gjves a special and particuiar remedy for enforcing it........The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue ths course applicabie to cases of the second ciass. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule iaid down in this passags was approved by the House of Lords in Nevile v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., (1918) A.C. 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Priyy Councii in Atlonwy Generai of Trinidad and Tabago v. Gorcton Grant & Co., 1935 A.C. 532 and Secretory of State v. Mask & Co. 44 Cat. W.E'-i. 708; and it has aiso been heid to be ' A1R (39) 1952 SC 64 .£33 ^ eauallv aDDticabie to enforcement or riahts (See Hurdutrai v. Off. Assignes of Cakutta, 52, Cal. W.N. 343,at p.349. That being.so, 1 think it will be a iair inference from the provisfons of the Representation of the Peopte Ast to state that ihe Act provides for oniy one remady, that remedy being by an election pstitlon to &e presented after the ejection is ovsr, and titere is no remedy provideci at any intermediate stage." n the matter of MohlncSar Singh Gtll and anoffier v. The Ghsei New Delhi anvl others , the Hon'bie Supreme High Court has no jurisciiction to entertain a writ petition 226 of the Constitution when appropriate forum of flling Is provided under She stafcrte as the election petffion held Article Court under electiQn requires a fui! tnat. 5) In the matter of Indrajtt Barua and others v. Election Commiasion Qf lisdia and others3 and Msncfa Jagannath v. K.S. Hathnam and others , the Hon'bte Supreme Court reaffirmed ttie view taken sn the matter of N.P.Ponnuswaml (supra). Subsequently, in the matter of Avtar Slnyh Hlt v. Delhl .s sin Vhe Supreme Court relying on the ratio laid down in the sase of N.P.Ponnuswami (Supfa) observed as under: "19. It Is well-settled prinraj^e that where eiections are conducted in accordance v/ith the provisions of a statute and the statute ateo provides a remedy of settlement of electlpn disputes by filing an eiection petition before a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should avaited of and recourse cannot be taksn to proceedings under Artiele 226 of the Constitution. Thls view has bsen taken 'n a series of decisions rendered by this Court......." 7S The dicta taid down as above was reiterated in the matter of Gurdeep Singh Dhillon v. Satpel and others". 8) Ssnce the eiectlon had akeady taken ptace, the di^sute wtth regard te deteflon of names from the voter list can be oonsidered only in the stoction 2 (1978)i SCC405 S1A!R1986SC103 4 (2004) 7 SCC 492 5 (2006) 8 SCC 487 6 (2006) 10 SCC 616 Gowri petition fiSed under the provisions of law i.e. S4 (2) (v) of ttie Chhatfegarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. ffit petition is dteposed to take recourse to the Detltioners under 9) In view of the foregoing, the liberty is reserved to the petltioners statutory forum that may be availabie of law. 10) Consequentiy, interim order passed eariier stamjs discharged. of. However, the attemative Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge