HIGH COURT OF CHHAT‘HSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) N0, 1669 0f2008 ETITIONERS : 1. Govind Ram, S/o Santram Sahu, aged about 42 years, occupation Agiculturist, A member of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maxyadit, Kolihapuri, R/o village Kolihapuri, Tahsii Dongargam District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Omkarlal Sahu, S/o Pitambar Sahu, Aged about 34 yeam, A member of Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Belgaon, R/o viliage Kolihapuri, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS . Deputy Registrar, Co~operative Societies, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2. Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Shashikam Dwivedi, S/o Pratap Singh, Presently working as Chairman District Cooperative Bank, Rajnandgaon, Tehsil & District Rajnamigaon, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kolihapuri, through its I Manager, Tahsii Dongargarh, District Rajnandgapn; Chhattisgaih, 5. 'Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Dhara, Through its Manager, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 6. District Central Cooperative Bank, Rajnandgaon, Through its General Manager, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS (wm PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 or THE CONsrirUTrON OF mDIA) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. Satish 1c Agnjhom, J.) ,Present : Shri Sanjay K. Agrawai with Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocates for the petitioiaers. Bhaskar Pyasi, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Shashi Bhushan, Advocate for the respondent No. 3,4 & 6. P ORAL ORDER (Passed an 28m day of Jammry, 2M9) With the consent ofthe pmies, the matter is taken up for hearing iinally. By this petition, the petitioners have made a grievance that no final order on the application ofthe petitioners, filed under Section 8 ofthe Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short ‘the Act‘), regarding admission of respondent No. 3 as a Member of Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Kolihapuri, is passed tiil date. 2) Admittedly: the election was held on 21.042008 and the results have been deciared thereof. It is well settled principle of law that if there is a provision for election petition, no writ petition is maintainable. l 3) In the matter ofNRPonnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakka Constimtemy, Manakkal, Salem Dist, and athersi a six judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, observed as under: “l2. It is now well-recognized that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedv for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that " statutoi’y only must he availed of. This ruie was stated with geat clarity by Willes J. in Wolver Hafizpton NewvWater Works Co. v. Hawkesjhra’, (1859) 6 QB. (its) 336, at p. 356 in the foiiowing passage: “There are three classes of cases in which a liabilitv may be established founded upon statute: One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is ‘ahinned 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 form 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 gives 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 ‘ 1mm) 1952 sc 64 applicable to cases of the secmid 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, (19 19) AC. 368 and has been reaErmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General i of Trinidad and Tabago v. Gordon Grant & C0,, 1935 AC. 532 and Secretmy ofState 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. Q)? Assignee ofCalcutta, 52, Cal. WN. 343, at p. 349. Tbat being so, Ithink 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 electioo petition to be preseiited atter the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intemiediate stage. $5 In the matter ofMohindar Singh Gill and anatha‘ v. The ChigfElectian Commissioner, New Delhi and othersZ, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 2.26 of the Constitution when appropriate forum of tiling election petition is provided under the statute as the election petition requires a full trial. In the matter oflndrajit Barua and others v. Eleaian Commission of India and other-S3 and Manda Jagannalh v. KS. Ratlmam and others". the \--Hon’bie Supreme Court reaiiirmed the view taken in the matter of NRPonnuswami (supra). Subsequently, in the matter ot‘Avtar Sing]: Hit v. Deihi Sikh Gurudwam Managment Committee and othersj, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the ratio laid down in the case ofNRPonnuswami (Supra) observed “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 proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. This view has been taken in a series of decisions rendered by this Court;......" 2 um) , i scc 4G5 J Am 1986 sc 103 4 (2on4) 7 soc 492 ‘ 5 (icon) s soc 437 The dicta iaid down as above was reiterated in the matter of Gut-deep Singh Dkillan v. Sagpal and otleerf‘ 8) Since the election had already taken place, the dispute with regard to admission of respondent No. 3 as a Member of the Sewa Sahkari Samiti, Kolihapuri, can be considered in appropriate fowm as provided under the provisions oflaw. 9) In View ofthe foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to take recourse to the alternative statutory forum that may be available to the petitioners under the provisions oflaw. 7) Sd/- ri‘ Satish K. Agnih’otri Judge Sahu a. (2006) 10 SCC 61' 6 it ~a~,,,./ s ‘