PET!T!0NER RE$WJNDENTS H!GH COURT OF $.HHK!‘T!SGARH : BELASPUR WRIT PETITION tC) N0. $306 OF 2Q63 Harjinder Singh Chawla, S/o Surjit Singh Chawia, aged about 30 years, Councilor and the Vice President of Municipa! Councii, Bemetara, Resident ¢f Wam‘ M107, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Bemetara, Tahsi! Bernetara, District [Burg (Chhattisgarh). Versij‘i; State of Chhattiggarh, through. Secretary, Eeparmerii of Urban Administraiicn and Deveiopment, Mantraiaya, D.K.S. Buiiding, Raipur, Chhatiisgarh. The Caiiector, Burg, Disirict Durg (CG), Municipal Councii, Bemetara, Through its Chief Municipai Officer, Municipal Council, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bemetara, Tahsil Beme‘tara, District Durg (6hhattisgarh). Baisakhu Ram Sahu, Counciicsr, Ward No.14l‘iiice President, Municipai Qauncil, Bemeiara, Tahsil Bemetara, Disirici Burg (Ci’il‘iai‘tisgarhl (Writ petiiian under Artioie 226/227 of the Constitution of india) ~ Singie Bench : Hon’ble 5hri $aiish K. Agnihotri, Jr i3re$ent :- Shri Saniay K. Agrawai, counsel for the petitionerr Shri Bhaskar Payasi, Panei Lawyer for the State, By this petition, the petitioner chaiienges the eiection of the Vios President on the grounoi that this is not an eiection, as the Vise President has been eieoteci by members ot Munioiha! Council, th r ... eretore, writ petition is maintainable. }ix oRAL oRoER (Passed an this 5‘“ day or oecernber, zoos) \x/ ”2r 2) it is weii $ettied principie of iaw ihat if siatute pmvides for chauenge of elastion by way of an eiactian petiticn, the writ Court should refrain itself frern entertaining thg petition. (See MP. Pannuswami v. Tha Returniiig Officea“, Namakkai €én$iituency, Manakkai, Saiem Est, and 0thars‘, Mohindar Siagh Gill and anziiher v. The Chief Election Gammissioner, New Delhi and othersz, lndrajit Barua and others v. Election Cummission cf lndia and atharsg, Manda Jagannath v. K.S. Ratlmam and elhars‘, Avtar Singh i-lit v. Delhi sikh Gurudwara Management Cnmmittae and athers5 and Gurdean Singh Dhillcn v. Satpal and dihems). 3) Section 20 (1) & (2) of the Chhattisgaih Municipalities Act, 1.951 (fer short “the Ad, i96f”) reads aeg under : “26. Electidn Patitinn$.-(1.) NO election or {nomination} under this Act be called into question except by a petition presented in acoordance with the provisions of thi$ section. (2) Such petition may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in Section 22. (a) by any candidate at such election or [nomination]; or (b) (i) in the case of an election of a Councilor, by any voter of the ward concerned; (ii) in the case of a nominatioi‘i of Councilor, by any Counciloi‘; (iii) in the oeee ef election of President by any voter of the Municipal area;} 1 AIR (39) 1952 sc 64 2 3 (1978) 1 SCC 405 4 AIR 1986 SC 103 (2004) 7 SCC 492 5 (2008) 8 SCC 487 : e (2006) ’lO SGC 616 t0 the District Judge, where such eiection 0r {mminatmn} is heid within tha revenue district in which the Court Qf the Distrmi Judge i$ situate, and irt any other case, to the Additionai District Judge having the permangnt $eat of his Court within the revenue district in which such election or nomination is held and if there be more than i one such Additionat Distriet Judge within the said revenue district, to such one of them as the District Judee may specify for the purpose (hereinafter such District Judge or Additionai District Judge referred to as Judge)" There is a ciear statutory provision under Rule 20 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1961. for chaiienging the genuineness or validity of, the eiection by way of eiection petition titeci before the appropriate authority. in view of the weii settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon’hle Supreme Court in the cases cited above, this Court by order dated 26-1 1-2008 dismissed W.P.i\lo.2607l2006 (Surya Prakash vs. Ramretan it Qthers) holding that if there is a provision for election petition, no writ petition is maintainable. Applying to the well settled principles of law and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is .liahle to he dismissed and is accordingty dismissed El Consequentiy, lANosfl & 2 stand disposed of. Sdl- saash K. Agnihotri Judge