.••>• RESPONDENTS WrjtPetition(C»No.3220of2007 1. Vishat, son of Palturam Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o village Mopki, Block Bhatapara, District Raipur and Member of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakart Samjti Maryadit, Nipaniya.DJstrictRaipur (CG). 2. RatiramSahu; sonof KarihalyaLalSahu, aged about 44 years, R/o village Parsada, Biock Abhanpur, Member of Prathi'nyc Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Pond. (bearing Registration No.657) District Raipur (CG). Versus 1. Stete of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Departmsnt of CQ-operation, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantrataya, District Raipur (CG). 2. The Registar, Co-operatwe Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3. The Joint Registrar, Go-operaiive Socieiy, Raipur(CG); 4. The ftetuming Officer, Prathmtk Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti lyiaryadit, Nipaniya, Biock Bhatapara (bearing reystratson No.802), Distfict Ra!pur (GG). 5. The Committee Manager, Prattimitt Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samffi Maryadit Nipaniya, $iock Bhatapara (bearing registranon No.802), Distr'ct Raipur (CG). 6, The Retuming Officer, Prathmik Krlshi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Pond, (bearing Registration No.BSTf District Raipur(CG5. 7. TheCommittee Manager, Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti lUSaryadit Pond, (Saearing Regisfration No.657) District Raipur(CG). (Writ petition under Articte 226 of the Oonstitution of Indsa) Singie Bench : Hon'bleShriSatish K. Agnihotri, >j Present: ShriRajsshPandey,counselforthepetitian®re. Shri A.S.Kachhawaha, Dy. Advocate GeneratfortheState. Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel forthe respondent No.5, 2 •if (Passedon this 2S"1 day of Novemb&r, 2008) i.A.No.4 This is an application for permission to withdrawaS of power, flled Qri behalf ofthe respondent No.5. It is ordered, as prayed for. By this petition, the petitioner No.1 has raised a grievance that the name of the petitioner No.1 was wrongfuiiy deteted from the voter iisf of Primary Cooperative Society. The petitioner No.2 questioned the validity of eiection on the ground that the Retuming Officer has after deciaring the list of confesting candidates, amended the same and issued the fresh tist of contesting candidates. 2) in this case, the State/respondents have fiied their return stating that the etection of Primary Cooperative Societies had already been held and the results thereofwere d&clared on 4-6-2007, which is evident from Annexures - R/1& R/2. tt is wei) setBsd principie of law that if there is a provision for election petltion, nowit petitioMs maintainable. •3) In the matter of N.P.Ponntiswami v. The Refuming Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, Manahkal, Sslem Ofst., aml otfsws a six iges Bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed as under: "12. St is now v/ell-recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute whieh gives a speciai remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statutory only must be avajfed of. This ruie was steied with great clarily by WillesJ.in Weslver Hampton New WaterWorks Co. y- Hawtesfofd, (1859) 6 C.B.(N.S,) 336, at p. 356 in the foiiowing passage: "There are three classes of cases in a iiabiiity may be established founded upon statute. Qne is, where there was a iabiiity existing at common law, and that lisbility is affirmed by a statute which gtves a specia! and peculiar form of remsdy different from ttie remedywhteh existed at common law; there, unless the ststute contains Vi/ords which sxpressiy or by necessary impiication exclude the common iaw remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the stetutory remedy. The second class of 1AIR{39$1952SC64 •^••'^ssessssss-ss cases is, where the statute gives ttie right to sus merely, but provides no (articular form of remedy: there, fte party can oniy proceed by action at common taw. But there is a third ciass, viz. where a liability not existing atcommon law is created by a statute which at thesametime gives a special and particuiar remedy for enfprcing it...... ..The reniedy provided by the statute must be foiiowed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. Ths form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in this passage was approved bythe S-tpuse of Lords in Nevile v. Loncton Express Newspaper Ltd., (1819) A.C. 368 and has been reafflrmed by ttse Prwy Counci! in Attomey Gerieral of TrimdacS and Tabago v. Sorefcn Grant & Cq., 1S3S A.C. 532 and Sscfetery of State v. Maslc & CQ. 44 Cal. W.N. 7C%; and it has also been held to be equalty appticable toenforcement or rights (See Hufdutra v. Off. Asssgnee af CaScuSa, K, Cal. W.N. 343, at p. 349. That being so, 1 think it wil be a fair ihference from the provistons of the Representation of the Peopls Act td state that the Act proyides for only 'one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to, be presented after the etection is over, andthere is no remedy provsded at any intermedirte stage." 4) in the matter of Mohindar Slngh Gill and another v. The Chief Etection Commissioner, New Dethi and othw^, the Hon'bto Suprerae Court heid that High Court has no jurisdiction to entertam a writ prttion under Article 226 of the Constttution when appropriate forum of filing eiection petition js provided under ths statute as the eiection petitton requires afuil tria!. 5) , \n Vne ma&erof IndrajSt Barua and othersv. Election Commissmn of Sndia and others and Manda Jagannath v. K.S. Rattmam and others, the Hon'bte Supreme Court reaffirmed the view taken in fte matter of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra). 6) Subsequently, in the matter of Avtar Singh Hit v. Delfii Sikh Gunidwara Managwnent Committee and oihera, whereln the Hon'bte 2 $1978)1 SCC405 ''AIR 1986 SC 103 4 (2004) 7 SCC W2. 5 (2006$ 8 SCC 487 '4: Gowri Supreme Court relying on the ratio iaid dov/n in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami fSupra^ observed as under: "19. tt is weil-settled principte that where elections are conducted in accordance with the provisions of a statojte and the statute aiso provides a remedy of settlement of elecWon ciisputes by niing an election peiltion before a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which shouid be availed of and recourse cannot be taken to proceedings under Articie 226 of the Constitution. This wew has been teken in a series of decisions rendered by this Gourt......." 7) The dicia laid down as above was reiterated in the matter of Gurcfeep Slngh Dhillon v. Sstpal andothers9. R Since the etection had al petitioners can be considered enly i provisions of law i.e. 64 (2) (v) of Act, 1960. taken piace, the grievance of fte the election petition filed under the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies 9) !n view of the foregoing, the writ iiberty is reserved to the petitioners t< statutory forum that may be available to oftaw. petition is disposed of. However, s take recouree to the alternattve the petitionere under the provisions Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge <itX>06)10SCC616