IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1070 of 2008 (M/S) Teerath Pal S/o Late Rooap Chand, R/o Village Kunja Badadurpur, Block Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Haridwar and others. … Respondents. Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the respondents nos. 1 to 3. Date July 07, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 28-6-2008 passed by the respondent No.3 (Contained as annexure No.2) to this writ petition. (II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandams commanding and directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of “Sanchalak” in forth coming election of Committees of Management of Sadhan Sahakari Samitee Chudiyala Block Bhagwanpur, Distrcit Haridwar. (III) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour of the petitioner. (IV) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Briefly stated the fats are that the nomination of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent NO.3 in the view of the Government Order 312/NiNi/Ma Sa Ni/ 2005-2006 Dehradun date 23-1-2006 that the petitioner is a member of Mandi Samittee, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provision of Rule 473 (1) (p) of the Uttaranchal Cooperative Societies Rules-2004. The relevant portion is quoted as under:- (1) No person shall be eligible to be or to continued as a member of the Committee of Management of any co- operative society, if- (p) he becomes a member of Gram Panchayat, Kshetra Panchayat, Nagar Panchayat, Zila Panchayat, or any other local body, Member of Parliament or State Ligislative Assembly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Mandi Samittee is not a local body rather it is a body- corporate, therefore rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is wholly illegal, arbitrary against the prevalent rules and is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner. Learned Additional C.S.C. appearing on behalf of the State has at the outset submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the judgment and order dated 3-7-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1066 of 2008 (M/S), Shabir Vs. D.M./District Election Officer and others. In the case at hand, there is dispute of rejection of nomination papers of the petitioner by respondent No.3. Whether the nomination papers were rightly rejected or not by the Election Officer as per provision of the Uttaranchal Co-operative Societies Rules, 2004 (for short the Rules), the remedy open to the petitioner is that of Election Petition as per provision of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 457 of the Rules. Rule 457 reads as under:- “457. (1) The election in a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that- (a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, or (ii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes, or (iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Byelaws of the Society. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or undue influence shall have the meaning assigned to each under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (2) A dispute relating to election shall be referred by the aggrieved party within 45 days of the declaration of the result.” Since the petitioner can challenge the rejection of the nomination papers by filing the election petition, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright 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.) MK