HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR r DIVI$i0N BENCH ‘ CORAM: HON‘BLE SHRI RAJEEV€ GUPTA, C.J. HON’ LE SHRE PRAsHA. 'T KUMAR Mi$HRA, J. Writ Anneal No.36 of 2010 1 ) u No 21, Durg Tan & Distt Burg (CG) i ; Writ Appeal under Section 2 i1) of hte Chhattisoarh High Court (Aeai to Division Bench) Act 2%6 i i Present : Shri VG Tamaskar, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate Genera! for the State Irespondents No.1 and 2. Judgment (15m February, 2319) The‘ following judgment of the Court was passed by ‘A Rajeev Gupta, C.J. I yLearned counsel for the parties are heard on admission, pp , Appeiiant Chhotelal Nadv aaed about 42 vears‘ (Petitioner) 8/0 Late $hri Baig Ram Yadav.'Votei. No.111 part3, Ward N037 R/o‘ Khana‘elwé! Cohny, Suryada'y'a Nagaf, § 1‘ E 1 Durg Tah 8: Distt Burg (CG) i a z VERSUS a ‘ i1 ‘ Resnondents 1 District Election Officer / Returning i : r , Ofrcer (Municipai Corparation, Burg) E Tah & Distt Durg (CG) 2 Assistant Returning Officer, (Municipai £ i3 Corporation, Durg) Tah & Distt Burg § i“ (CG) 3 Dr Shiv Kumar Tamer aged about 58 8/0 Late Shri Ramji Tamer,R/o i z\ years Ramji 644, Samidha Sindhiya Nagar, Ward @ 2) Appellant Chhotelai Yadav has med this writ appeai against the impugned order dated 15.01 .2010i, passed in WP(C) No.196 of ‘ 2010. , i -‘ ‘ i ’ § 3) Appeiiant / petitioner Chhoteial§ Yadav fiied the writ petition I ‘for the foiiowing reliefs : ; "(i) That the Hon’ble Court bfe pieased to call for the records of Nomination'Paper,'Aftidavit, declaration etc fiied by the Respondent No.3 end peruse the same. (ii) That the-Hon’ble Court be pieased to quash the election of the Respondent No.3 as Mayor Municipal Corporation Durg (CG) and’quash Annexure P-4 8: P—s. V . (iii) That the Hon’ble Court be pleasedto issue any’ Writ or Writs, Direction or Directions, Order or Orders i i L deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of § the election of respondent No.3 Dr Shiv Kumar Tamer as Mayor, I Municipal Corporation; Durgron the ground that he did not belong to ‘Other Backward Class’.’ 5) Learned Single Judde ’on a thorough consideration of the submissrons advanced on behalf of the petitioner found that the _ appropriate remedy for the petitioner was of flilng an Election Petition under Section 441(1) of the MunICIpaI Corporation Act 1956 Learned Single Judge therefore dismissed the writ petition a inthe foilowmg terms. _ “The petition‘has no merit he same is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy J However the petltloner would be at hberty to file an Election Petition In accordance with law i Shri VG Tamaskar, learned cou'nsel for the appellant, placing reliance on the observations of the Apex court in Para 4O ln the l . § 6) judgment In the case of Kurapatl Marla Das Vs Dr Ambedkar Seva Samajan and others reported ln (2009) 7 SCC 387 vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has erred rn l dismissino the appellant’s writ petition on the ground of availability} of alternative remedy of filing an Electron Petition 7) The Apex court in the case of Kurapatl Maria Das (supra) observed in para 40: “4U. ln our opinion, it is necessaryto get examined the caste certificates of all the elected persons from reserved constituencies within a time~frame to avoid such controversres Be that as it may, in our opinion the High Court clearly erred firstly, In entertainino the writ petition, secondly in going into the disputed question ofkfact, regarding the caste status, thirdly, in holding that the appeiiant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and ’fourthly, in allowing the writ petition.” From the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Kurapatl Maria Das (supra) it is apparent that a writ petition seeking quashing of the eiection of a candidate in the Municipal t Corporation is not maintainable. 9) in this View of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the learned Singie Judge has declined‘to 8) . i i l f f ‘ ‘entertain‘ the Writ petition fiied byl‘the appeliant I petitioner: ‘ chauengina the eiection of respondent No.3 Dr $hiv Kumar Tamer; ‘ as Mayorof MunICIpal Corporation Duira 10) As we do not find anv ground ifor Interference 1n ims Intra ourt peai he writ appai ls Itie t be distssed and ts C ao t e ab o m hereby dismissed summanly. § Ci M Sd/- - 5"”- . ~ Ar ". ChiefJustice , r ( \ r:‘Plliasham Kumar . MlShra \. r ‘ Judge - 4 ‘ t ' t ‘ subbu *"fi' r’