R HlGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH.BILASPyR PETITIQNER W.P.(Ct N0.196of 2010 ChhottelalYadav, Aged about42years, S/o Late Shri Bala Ram Yadav, Voter No.111, Part 3, WardNo.37, R/o Khandelwal Colony, Suryodaya Nagar, Dyrg, Tah. & District Durg (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 Election Officer/Returning (Municipal Corporation, District Officer, Durg) Assistant Retuming Officer, (MunicipalCorporation, Qurg) Dr. ShivKumar Tamer, | Aged about 58 years, S/b Late Shri Ramji Tamer, R/o 644 Samidha - Sindhaya Nagar, Ward No.21, Durg Tah. & DistrictDurg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIONOF INDIA ADDearance: Shri V.G.Tamaskar, Counsel forthe petitioner. ORDER (15.01.2010) SUNILKUIWAR SINHA.J. Heard on admission. Petitioner -Chhotte Lal Yadav has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following reliefs : "(i) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of Nomination Papers, Affidavit, declaration etc filed by the RespondentNo.3 and perysethe same. (ii) That the Hon'blecourt be pleased to quash the eleGtionof the Respondent No.3 as Mayor Mynicipal Corporation Durgi (C.G.) and qyash Annexyre P-4 & P-5. ^ WRIT PETITION (0 N0. 196/2010 (iii) That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue any Writ or Writs, Direction or Directions, Order or Orders deemed fit in the interestofjustice." The petitioner, thus, in substance is praying for quashing the election of respondent No.3 as Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Durg (C.G.). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that election to the post of Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Durg, was held on 23 of December 2009 and respondent No.3 was declared elected as Mayor on 27.12.2009. Copies of declaration form and Election Certificate ete. have been filed as Annexure P/4 & P/5. He also submits that the said post was reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC). He further submits that respondent No.3 does not belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC). His election to the said post is null and void. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kurapati Maria Das vs. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samaian and others, (2009) 7 S.C.C. 387. 1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also perused the records ofthe writ petition. In case of Kurapati Maria Das (Suora}, the learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents challenging the election as well as continuation of the appellant therein as the Chairperson of Bapatla Municipal Council. It was also a dispute of caste. The sajd judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench. It was further challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court clearly erred firstly, in entertaining the writ petition, secondly in going into the disputed question of fact regarding the caste status, thirdly, in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Caste and fourthly, in allowing the writ petition. Thereafter, the judgments of the Single Bench and the .Division Bench ofthe High Court were set aside. While allowing the said appeal, the Supreme Court observed vide "para 9 as under: " 9. The appellant relied on the caste certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in August 2005 and other certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer in the year 2004 showing B» .•f^^~\ tf' <f ,"" t ^l' ^ ;B^';'"\^»>' WRIT_PETITION ('C) N0. 196/2010 that he belonged to Hindu Mala category. In short, he categorically disputed the claim of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) that he was not a Hindu Mala Scheduled Caste but was a Christian. He also pointed out that firstly his nomination and his election as a ward member which he had contested as a Scheduled Caste candidate, was never challenged by way of an election petition though there is a specific remedy provided in the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities (Decision on Election Disputes) Rules, 1967." In the facts and circumstances of this case, reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the aforesaid judgment is totally misconceived. Article 243 ZG ofthe Constitution creates a barto interference by courts in electoral matters. It reads as uhder:- "243ZG. 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 243ZF 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". The Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 makes provision for filing of an Election Petition u/s 441 (1). Admittedly the said remedy is available to the petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above, the writ petition for the aforesaid relj^fs cannot be entertained. The petition has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file an Election Petition in accordance withjaw____.=^—= Sd/- SunUKumarSmha Judge