IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 621 of 2008 (M/S) Mukesh Chandra Arya S/O Shri Satya Prakash Arya R/O Harsoli, Bhowali, District Nainital. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. Returning Officer Mr. Jagdish Lal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Koshya-Kutoli, District Nainital. 2. District Election Officer/District Magistrate, Nainital. 3. State Election Commission, Haridwar Bye Pass Road, Dehradun, through Election Commissioner. … Respondents. Sri C.D.Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondents-State. Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent no.3- State Election Commission. Date April 09, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri C.D.Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to implead State Election Commission as respondent no.3 to the writ petition. Permitted. Amendment be incorporated during the course of the day. Heard. This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- 1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 02-04-2008 passed 2 by the respondent no.1, contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Issue a writ, order or direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to contest election of the Ward Member of Ward No.1- Lalli Mandir Ward of Municipal Board, Bhowali, District Nainital, on the nomination paper filed by the petitioner on 31-03-2008. 3. Issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. 4. Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he filed nomination form for the seat of Ward Member of the Ward No. 1 of the Municipal Board, Bhowali, district Nainital. It has been alleged that the name of the petitioner is registered in the electoral roll of the Municipality Bhowali but his father’s name was wrongly printed. The Returning Officer, on scrutiny having been made, rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that his name was not registered in any of the electoral roll. The main contention of the petitioner is that there is no provision in the statutory rule for rejecting nomination form of any candidate on ground of printing of name of the father of the candidate wrongly and that for the fault on the part of the Municipal Board or the District Administration, the rejection of nomination form of the petitioner by the respondent no.1 is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3-State Election Commission has contended that there is specific bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters as has been provided under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India read with provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 and submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the State Election Commission has stated this 3 Court in a similar matter, vide order dated 04-04-2008, has already dismissed the Writ Petition No. 599 of 2008 (M/S). Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “243-ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.- Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 243-ZA, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” Section 19 of the U.P. Municipalities Act deals with the power to question municipal election. Relevant portion of Section 19 reads as under:- “19. Power to question municipal election by petition.- (1) The election of any person as a member of a Municipality may be questioned by an election petition on the ground- (a) that such person committed during or in respect of the election proceedings a corrupt practice as defined in Section 28; (b) that such person was declared to be elected by reason of the improper rejection or admission of one or more votes, or any other reason was not duly elected by a majority of lawful votes; 4 (c) that such person was not qualified to be nominated as a candidate for election or that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected.” In view of the provisions of clause (b) of Article 243- ZG of the Constitution of India there is bar of jurisdiction. As provided under Section 19(1)(c) of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, statutory remedy is available to the petitioner to file election petition. On the ground of statutory remedy available to the petitioner, as indicated above, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6