IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1168 of 2008 (M/S) Tejpal Singh, S/O Sri Rodha Singh and two others. …… Petitioners. Versus Registrar Co-operative Societies, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and three others. … Respondents. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondent no.1, 2 &4. Date July 17, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no.1, 2 and 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15-07-2008 (Annexure No. 9) passed by the Nirwachan Adhikari, Sahakari Sangh Ltd. Daulatpur, Block Roorkee, District Haridwar, whereby the nomination of the petitioners was rejected on the ground mentioned in the order. According to the petitioners, they have been declared elected on 11-7-2008 as representatives of Kisan Udhyog Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Daulatpur, District Haridwar by the respondent no. 3 vide Annexure No. 1. The voter list was finalized by the respondent no.3 on 13-7-2008 and the election programme was issued on 14-7-2008. The petitioners filed their nominations with requisite fee of Rs. 250/- each. Certain persons filed objections 2 against the nomination papers of the petitioners as mentioned in paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the memo of writ petition. The grievance of the petitioners is that the election officer has rejected their nomination papers without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to them and the objections were not filed as per Rules and the rejection of their nominations by respondent no.3 is arbitrary and illegal and their nomination papers have been wrongly rejected. Learned Additional C.S.C. appearing on behalf of the State has at the outset submitted that the controversy involved in the present writ petition stands resolved by the judgment and order dated 3-7-2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1066 of 2008 (M/S) Shabir Vs. D.M./District Election Officer and others. In the case at hand, there is dispute of rejection of nomination papers of the petitioners by respondent no.3-Election Officer. Whether the nomination papers were rightly rejected or not by the Election Officer as per provision of the Uttaranchal Co- operative Societies Rules, 2004 (for short the Rules), the remedy open to the petitioners is that of Election Petition as per provision of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 457 of the Rules. Rule 457 reads as under:- “457. (1) The election in a co-operative society shall not be called in question either by arbitration or otherwise except on the ground that- (a) the election has not been a fair election by reasons that corrupt practice, bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination, or (ii) by improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes, or 3 (iii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, the Rules or the Byelaws of the Society. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule corruption, bribery or undue influence shall have the meaning assigned to each under Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. (2) A dispute relating to election shall be referred by the aggrieved party within 45 days of the declaration of the result.” Since the petitioners can challenge the rejection of the nomination papers by filing the election petition, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition, which is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. All pending applications stand disposed of. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5