i^^<..:^::^!!^(B| (^ Writ Petition (Cl No. 3300 of 2007 Shukla, aged about 54 years, S/o Sri Gajadhar Prasad Shukia, R/o Vardhman Coiony, Jagdaipur, Bastar t1~t\ (•-;u); .< rti~j OT unr Secretery, Department of Co-operative, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya. District Raipur (CG). Registrar, Co-operative Societies, State of Raioi Adim Jaati Sewa Sahakari Sami MaryacSit, Jagdalpur, Bastar. l¥^i unds Seni Present: Shri Rajesh Pandey, counsel forthe petiifoner. Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate GeneraS forthe State. (Passed on this 25 day ofNovember, 2008) By this petition, the petttioner has rasied a grievance that the resoondent authorities are not prooerSv fixed the reseri'atlon of seats in !She electlon of Primary Co-operative Society. 2'i Accordina to learnsd counsel aDDearina for the isarties, the elec'iion Its have been deciared thereof. tt ss weli ifthere is a Drovision for eisction oetition, no writ was already he!d and the sett'ied orinciDle of iaw 'that if tl pet'tion is maintainabie. 1 tne maaer or N.P.I lal Constiwtency, ManakkaS, Salem Dist, others' a s'w. tench of the Hon'bie Suoreme Court. obsereed as under: "12.1t is now weil-rscognized that whers a right or iJa&Hlty Is crsated by a statute which gh/es a speciaj remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statutory only must be a'/aiied judges of. This rule v/as stated with great ciarity by Wilies J. in Woh/er , -^AiE_[3y} 1952 SC 64 *a '. V. i' P' £3 A Q. \ \-'.E3. VM.O.J p. 356 in the foilo'A'lRg passage: "There are ffir.ee ciasses of cases in w'nich a ilabiiitv mav be estabiished founded upon sSatuts. Ons te, ",'hers thsrs v/as a iiabiiity existlng 'at common iaw, and thst liab'ilty is affirmed by a statute which gives a specia! and pecuiiar Torm of remedy different from the remedv which existed at common iaw; there, uniess She statute contains v/ords which sxpressly or by necessary implication exciude the common iaw remedy, the paity suing has his eiection to pursue sither that or the statutoiy remsdy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue mereiy, but provldes no partfeular form of remedy: there, the pariy can oniy proceed by action at common taw. But there Is a third ciass, vsz. whers a ilabjllfry not existing at cornmon iaw is created by a stetuts whic'n at the same time gives a speclai and particular remedy for enforeing it........The remedy provided by the statute must be foito'wed, and it is not compatent to the pariy to pursue the course applicabie to cases of the second ciass. the statute must be ihered to." Ths rute iaid down in this passage v/as approved by the House of Lsrds In h'evjie v. Loneton Expmss hiewspaper Ltd., (1919) A.C. 368 and has been reafflrmed by the Privy Tabago v. Go.-don Grant & Co., 1935 A.C. 532 and Secretafy of State v. Mask & Co. 44 Cal. W.N. 709; and it has also been hetd to be equally applicabie to enforeement or rights (See Hurdiitrai v. Off. Assigneeof Csteute, 52, Cal. W.N.343, at s.349. That being so, 1 thlnk it wiil be a fair infersnce from the provisions of the the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy belng by an eiection petitlon to be is over, ana tnere ss yiriiarlt'at snv int'srmfiriiate stBns " ttat any 'nterm rife5"> t^?if. ofters , the Hon'ble Supreme held that High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ petitlon Artlcis 226 of the Constitution when appropriate forum of fiiinc 2 (1978)13cc 40; ~y 3 etection oetition is rsauiresafulitriai. 5) !n the as the eSsction k.». 1S» i'bie Supreme Coun reaffirmed the view taken in ths matter of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra). 'sequentlv, in the maSer of Avtar Smgh Hit v. Delhi Sikh relying on the ratio Said in the case of S) "19. it is weiS-settted principle that v/here elsctlons are conducted in accordance wjtfs the provisiorss of a statute and the statute atso provides a remedy of settisment of eieption disputes by 'fiilns an election petitlon before a tribuna!, it is that remedv atone which should be avalsed of and recourse cannot be taken to proceedings under Articje 226 of the C-onstitutio", This vtew has been taken in a series of decisions rendered by this C-ourt......." dlcta iaid down as above v/as reiterated in the mattei ',ingh Dhl!lon v. SatpaS and others0. 8) Sincs the election ostitioner can be consii wisions of law i.s. 64 already taKen place, the gnevance only in the eiection petition fiied (2) (v) of the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. 3) In view of ttie foregoina, the v/rit oeiition is disposed of. However, is ressrved to petitioner to take recourse to i available to the petitioner under the provisions of iav/. 10) Consequently, I.A.No.1 for interim relier stands disposed oi Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ~AiR19S6SC103 4 (2004) 7 SCC 482 3 (2006) 8 SCC 487 ''(2006)10300616