^^ n/iei COf iLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & .27/3 Har]inder Singh ChawlaT Son of Surjit Singh Chawta, aged about 30 vsars, Counciior and the Vice President of Municipal Council, Bemetara, Resident of Ward No. 07, Guru Govind Singh Ward, Bemetara, Tahsii, Bemetara, Distt. Dyrg (Chhattisgarh) State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Departmenf of Urban Administration and Development, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Buiiding Raipur (Chhattisgarh.) The Collector, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Municipal Council, Bemetara, through its Chief Munteipa! Officer, M.unicipal Council, Bemetara, Tahsil Bemetara, Distt, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Bemetara, Tahsit Bemetara, District Durg. Cfthattisgarh. Baisaku ,Ram Sahu, Councillor, Ward No, 14, Vice President, Municipal Councii; Bemetara, Tahsil Bemtara, Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh. BENCHI. Act, Present: Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, counsel for the appeliant. jl Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additionai Advocate for the State / respondents No.1 , 2 & 4. l^ tli 8;isSa Rp .':iE1ii; -'' (3 'th The following order of the Court was passed by 2} Learned counsel for the parties are heard on adinission Appeilant Harjinder S'ingh Chawla has filed this writ ist the 6800/2008. l.12.2008, passed in WP (C) 9) The appeliant / petitioner filsd the writ petition for the lowing reiiefs: fo "10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly to cail for t'ne entire records concerning the case of t'ne petitioner from the possession of the respondent No.2, for its kind perusal. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindiy-be pieased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside (Annexure P-1) datsd 25.07.2007 and decfare the same as void and ?.3 The Hon'bie Court may further kindty be pleased to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus directing the officia! respondents to consider afresh the resignation submitted by ths petitioner. $.4 Any' oiher relief, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper, in the fact and circumstances may aiso be granted in favour of the petittoner, togetherwith cost ofthe petition." 4) Learned Single Judge, following the decta of t'ne Apex Court In the casss mentionsd in parss 2 & 5 of the impugned order deciined to entertain t'ne writ petition on the ground that the ElQCtl nion petitioner, has a statutory remedy of filing an under provisions of the Municipallties Act, 1961 and the Ruies, made thereunder. ^f' '-1&S.~ ?>;^ •:-:;3SE^»= l^ 5) Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeiiant could not dlspute that an Election Petition is maintainabte in the 6) In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmjty in the impugned order, whereby learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition. 7) Jhe writ appeal, therefore, is Isabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismlssed summarily Sd/- ChiefJustice oadma ——-— Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge