1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5494/2010 Chittarmal Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 8.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ashish Saksena - for the petitioner Mr Hanuman Choudhary – for respondent No.4 BY THE COURT: By this writ petition a challenge has been made to continuance of respondent No.4 on the seat of ward member of Panchayat Samiti, Panchayat Samiti Ward No.23, Sambhar Lake, District - Jaipur. Petitioner is, admittedly, one of the candidates who had contested the election against respondent No.4, however, instead of filing election petition to challenge election, he has preferred this writ petition to seek restrained order in regard to continuance of respondent No.4 as ward member. The precise ground given for the aforesaid is that respondent No.4 was not entitled to contest the election as he is having his name at four places in the voter list thus he should have been declared as disqualified. But, ignoring this, nomination papers of respondent No.4 were accepted. 2 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that writ petition is not maintainable in the hands of one of the contesting candidates of the election because election can be challenged by maintaining an election petition under rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994. Reference of the judgment passed by this court in the case of Smt Sameera Bano & ors Versus State of Rajasthan & ors (2007 (2) WLC [Raj] 526) has been given. Similar controversy was involved in the aforesaid case and it was held that in view of Article 243-O of the Constitution of India a writ petition in the hand of contesting candidate is not maintainable. I have considered the submissions made and perused the record of the case besides the judgment cited at the Bar. Since a challenge to continuance of respondent No.4 as ward member has been made, which is nothing but by challenging his election as his name was appearing at four places in the voter list. The fact remains that aforesaid could have been challenged by maintaining an election petition, however, petitioner's failure in doing so cannot entitle him to maintain a writ petition. The Full Bench judgment in the case of Sameera Bano (supra) covers the issue. Thus, relief prayed for by the petitioner 3 cannot be granted in this writ petition. In the light of aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed as the prayer sought for cannot be granted by this court in this writ petition and the same can be granted in an election petition. Petitioner, however, is not precluded to maintain an election petition, if it is so permissible and maintainable now. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma