IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ASPUR 20% L WRIT PETION (C) NO. /2008 PETITIONERS KM $ Laxman Chandrakar son of Vasudev Chandrakar, aged about 53 years, R/ o. Village and Post Matwari, LTahsil and District Durg (Chhattisgarh) 2. Benlal Patel, son of Shri Narottam Patel; aged about 54 years, Resident of village Karanja Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg. VERSUS 1 . /' MW, Dar-g *fDistrict Cooperative Central Bank Limited». through Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Durg (CG) Returning _ Officer, District Cooperative ' Central Bank Limited Durg (CG) AK. Bajpai, Additional Collector, Durg. Returning Officer, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Durg (CG) Preetpal Belchandan son of Bhudhar Belchandan R/o Village Tirga Tahsd and Distrt/ Durg (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY AND/0R ANY OTHER SUITABL WRIT OF LIKE NATURE The.&titionensmostresne cttullyasubmj‘tagaundm- j, , ..... E“ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 1C} NO. 2082 OF 2008 Laxman Chandrakar & Another Versus Resgondents District Cooperative Central Bank Limited & Others WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present :— Dr. N.K.Shukia, Senior Advocate with Shri V.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates for the respondents No.1 to 3. None appears for the respondent No.4. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 29"“ day or November, 201 0) 1 . The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.4 has been elected on the post of Chairman, District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Durg, on the forged nomination form, as is evident from affidavit of Shri Beniiai Patel (petitioner No.2). Thus, this petition, seeking an enquiry into the forging of signatures. 2. Be that as it may, it is a case where the basic chalienge is to the election of respondent No.4, on one or other grounds, which cannot be considered by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, when specific remedy to challenge election in dispute is available under provisions of law. (See: State of H.P. and others Vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement and another1, U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey and \ 1 (2005) 6 sco 49,9 t k 2@ anotherz and KSRashid and Son Vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission and others3 as we” as of this Court in Shri Daltatraya Mandir Trust Vs. State of CG. & Others" and Tarachand Mannade Vs. Dharamdas Mani/aang & Others5). tn view of foregoing, Dr. Shukla, learned senior counsel seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with liberty to ’ take recourse to alternative statutory remedy that may be available under the provisions of law. Learned counsel appearing for other side has no objection. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. Sdl— . ' Satish K. Agmhotn Judge R 2 (2005}8 soc 264 3AIR 1954 so 207 4 2009(3)C.G.L.J. 392 52010(1)C.G.L.J. 191