HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2029 of 2008 (M/S) Sri Manish Verma ... Petitioner. Versus Election Commissioner, Govt. of India, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi through its Under Secretary & others. .....Respondents. Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned Standing Counsel (Union of India). 21st November, 2008 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. This is a writ petition which is liable to be rejected at the very threshold. The petitioner has admittedly moved certain objections before the Returning Officer for cancelling the nomination of respondent no. 5 as the BJP party candidate. The said objections were rejected by the Returning Officer. This has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The law in this point is absolutely clear and settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Court. The seminal decisions on this aspect are the two judgments of the Apex Court namely, Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in 1978 1 SCC 485 and N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist., and others reported in 1952 AIR SC 64. The law is settled that once elections are notified and the election process is on, the Court would not interfere in the matter 2 and any dispute relating to election shall be agitated only by means of an election petition. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the election process is already on. Therefore, I find no force in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Sudhanshu Dhulia) 21.11.2008 Avneet