31;Hf "ii-Ki'^.r;< c ^'^^ .<.V^S^- ^^^'g^-" ^''..-••^-•'v'^" .XN^-1-'" mTHEmGHC'OURTOFCHHATTISGAfiHAT BILASPtiR CHHATTISGARH £- . : !: :' 1 WRIT PETrrON (32ffl No.3^\ / 2010 ^^):... :".' ;" Smt. Kabutri Devi, W/o LateBholaSmgh, agedabout 52 years, R/6 Gram Chiridkalo, Post Darima, Tehsil Ambikapur, '" DisttictSurguja(C.G.) PETITIONER <-&«' .-• ^ A.--"' RESPONDENTS: 1 Versus State pf Chhattisgarb Through: Elecfion Gommissioner, Raipur 2. 3. ^frt/,t:sf-"""»».f,. 4. ^ Cpllector, Surguja'(C.G.) Retuming OfEcer(Panchayat), • Block-Ambikapur,TehsilAmbikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Presiding Officer, Pahchayat Election, BlockAmhikapur, Talisil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.V) 5. Smt. Vayu Shri W/o Manilal, aged about 21 years,R/o0ram Chindfcalo, Posf Darima,TehSilAmbikapur,District .•.^urguja(C.©.)':.<.. :./.• :: - i ,: WRiaTMlTTlWiai^iR.:^^ ^K(3C)iNisaUtfflMUEi(!)F®ffi^l';'".^^ -1 ;:<i SBIIJW m0H(eOURTOE'BHH^tMSGMH:.^BmatSP©R PETITIQNER ;WRffi MTB3N.U3'):^No;272l;o£2Ql Siut/^RaBiitrtBevi. 'RESPoisnaEMTs :.VERS i:.-:ff,-^:',:.:.11::' 'State^fGKUMttsgarh^ Ofhers. Wmt TITICmUNE)ER^y^Cm^6^<EH^ SB:Hmi®e!Shi-i®atisKiK.^si[nllot .L ^Present:. . ; SiKt AnjuAKuja,'Ad^Gate& .' , : SMA.V.SMdfaay,EanelI;awyeE]fc)r^t^^ .^.-.:';:.QM:XER;('0 ^,-,.:;T^r^;^'':.'::;,:'^ ~(Passed0nI7 jda^of;.Jt3He,,2Di®)'^^:^^ ::l»^:';:..;'^'1|[its;peti(Km^!tBe.^i^ .:.;EleG$i)nc^;'.ofi|^j?am%|Ba;JH3ls^ . ^^Afl%ikaCTf);l;:RlsfriWS§nr^a,>i'®B^ Tespondeht/No; 5 was decKed.as ^Gted;Sarpanchin^^^^d^ 2. It'is well settted fhat vaUdif)':Qf:the electi(m.can^^ t, electiori'^etitioaamlii^fcy^ay.ofwrif^ ^C^Btitirtion of,India,;^yheti.fHeTe4s.^sg^ 122pftheCUliattisgaTK^I>anchaya(,I^-AdliinSyam,'t993 ;': electiDn.ofGfam.Panebayat;:.^^-..' V'- •.••:''^,.^ :':,:;.''l^r: :';:';:.|:1^..•:";:;j'-:l^ 3;.:Y:^:^In; e.matter o^i^V^jpBwwi^ff^ '(^f(^Mency,:WaMa1{K^Salem^K^aWS^j ,'l;^i;,;;'^-,;!:''^ls :•:,.;; :!;'j::S..i^, ;c^fl:ieMon'bte;SupremS^Qurt,.6bseFV^as^ "/-^'•l^:'i'l-»'-*TTf4-^Ti:T;rVi7/TL**/^h^/\? :.^t<^:-<fiLUL-l'^-'.': ^''^ :-^ j"^ . ^ '. /.'.:'. .^ ':f "::• ••• "•: '. ^ 'i:. -.^ provided by that statutory only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes J. in Wolver Hampton New ]Vater Works Co. v. Hawkesford, (1859) 6 C.B.(N.S.) 336, at p. 356 in the following passage: "There are three classes ofcases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affiniied by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular fonn of remedy: there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time giyes a special and particular remedy for enforcing it..... . ..The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Nevile v. London Express Newspaper Ltd., (1919) A.C. 368 and has been reaffiniied by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tabago v. Gordon Grant & Co., 1935 A.C. 532 and Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. 44 Cal. W.N. 709; and it has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement or rights (See Hurdutrai v. Off. Assignee of Calcutta, 52, Cal. W.N.343,at p. 349. That being so, I think it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to state that the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage." ^ 4. In the matter of Mohindar Singh Gill afid antrther v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Court has nojurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when appropriate forum of filing election petition is provided under the statute as the election petition requires a full trial. 5. In the matter of Indrajit Barua and others v. Election Commissioii of India and others and Manda Jagannath v. K.S. Rathnam and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the view taken in the matter of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra). 6. Subsequently, in the matter of Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Commitlee and others , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on the ratio laid down in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (Supra) observed as under: 19. It is well-settled principle that where elections are conducted in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the statute also provides a remedy of settlement of election disputes by filing an election petition before a tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be availed of and recourse cannot be taken to proceeciings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view has been taken in a series ofdecisions rendered by this Court......." 7, The dicta laid down as above was reiterated in the matter of Gurdeep Singh Dhillonv. Satpal and others . 2 (1978)1 SCC405 3AIR1986SC 103 4 (2004) 7 SCC 492 ' (2006) 8 SCC 487 "(2006) 10 SCC 616 w^!^f?^^"s^s!^^s^'':^!:>y-'^'^. i;^gi?^^^^i<?^'^;¥;';:!!^'''^K^;':t^'-:: 8. 9. :^':lN^f-i%;N; Amit This Court, relying on the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforestated cases, took the same view in other identical matters i.e. Sewa Sahakari Samiti Jhironi & another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and Surya Prakash v. Ramratan & Others . In view of the foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum that may be available to the petitioner under the provisions oflaw. Sd/- SatishK.Agnih°m Judge