IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 623 of 2008 (M/S) Sunita Devi, Wife of Parshu Ram, Resident of village Chakki Tola, Niranjanpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District Dehradun. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. State Election Commission, Haridwar Bye Pass Road, Dehradun, through Election Commissioner and three others … Respondents. Sri V.K.Bist, Senior Advocate, with Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent no.1- State Election Commission. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents-State. Date April 09, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri V.K.Bist, Senior Advocate, with Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 2 to 4. Heard. This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- 1. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari, by quashing the order dated 04-04-2008 (Annexure No.1) passed by the respondent no.4 to the writ petition. 2. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to contest the election on the seat of Corporator Ward No. 48 Indira Puram, District Dehradun. 2 3. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 4. Award the cost of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the State Election Commission issued a notification declaring the elections of Municipal Board for the seats of Chairman and Corporators for different districts and wards. The petitioner is an OBC candidate and she filed her nomination form on 31-3-2008 for the seat of corporator from Ward No. 48, Indira Puram. An affidavit was also filed by her to the effect that she has not filed nomination paper for any other seart of Corporator Ward. Subsequently, on 1-4-2008, the petitioner filed her nomination papers for Ward No. 43 East Patel Nagar. The petitioner was allotted symbol for Ward No. 48. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner demanded symbol for Ward No. 43, the respondent no. 4 informed the petitioner that as per amended Rules, she cannot file nominations from more than one seat and she was advised to withdraw her nomination for Ward No. 43. The petitioner moved an application for withdrawing her nomination from Corporator Ward No. 43. The respondent no.4 vide his order impugned in this writ petition cancelled her nomination paper from both the aforesaid Wards No. 48 and 43. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner moved a representation before the respondent no.1 alleging therein that her nomination forms have been rejected on the ground that she filed nomination papers from two different wards, while one Rakesh Lakhera who had filed his nomination from Wards No. 38 and 39 has been allowed to contest the election. This discriminatory act on the part of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. 3 Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-State Election Commission has contended that there is specific bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters as has been provided under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission has stated this Court in a similar matter, vide order dated 04-04-2008, has already dismissed the Writ Petition No. 599 of 2008 (M/S). Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “243-ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act deals with the power to question municipal election. Relevant portion of Section 19 reads as under:- “19. Power to question municipal election by petition.- 4 (1) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition on the ground- (a) that such person committed during or in respect of the election proceedings a corrupt practice as defined in Section 28; (b) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes, or any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes; (c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected.” In view of the provisions of clause (b) of Article 243- ZG of the Constitution of India there is bar of jurisdiction. As provided under Section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to file election petition. On the ground of statutory remedy available to the petitioner, as indicated above, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6