Civil Writ Petition No. 4926 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4926 of 2010 Date of decision : 07.05.2010 Sunder Singh and others ....Petitioners V/s State of Haryana and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sukant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondents No. 1, 2 & 4. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No. 3. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition with a grievance that names of the petitioners have not been included in Ward No. 30 of Municipal Council, Thanesar or any other ward thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have voters' identity card issued by Election Commission of India and despite this, their names do not figure in the Voter list of Municipal Council, Thanesar. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of State (respondents No. 1, 2 & 4) and Municipal Council, Thanesar (respondent No. 3). Learned State counsel has pointed out that petitioners did not avail the alternative remedy available to them as per Rule 9 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978. This apart, learned State counsel has Civil Writ Petition No. 4926 of 2010 2 submitted that petitioners do not reside within the Municipal Limits of Thanesar. According to him, in the title of petition, the petitioners have given their address as resident of Chaudhary Hari Singh Farm, Didar Nagar, Darra Khera, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra. According to him, the said farm does not fall within the municipal limits of Thanesar. Learned counsel appearing for Municipal Council, Thanesar (respondent No. 3) has reiterated the arguments addressed by learned State counsel. He has further referred to Annexure R-1 (Notification dated 17.09.2004) of reply filed by Municipal Council to contend that farm in question is not within the municipal limits of Thanesar. No re-joinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to rebut the stand taken by the respondents. Admittedly the petitioners did not avail the alternative remedy in terms of Rule 9. The stand of the respondents is that petitioners do not reside within municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Thanesar. The issues involved are factual in nature which cannot be adjudicated upon in writ jurisdiction of this court. Under the circumstances, there is no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. May 07, 2010 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE