^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WntPetitron (QNo, 4398 of20^ PETITIQNER : Abdul Jabbar S/o Gafur Khan, aged about 55 years, resident of Village and Post Kusmi, District Surguja (CG). VERSUS JRESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Mantralaya, DKS Building, Raipur, (CG). 2. Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnaa Board, tfarough its Managiug Director, Purani Ganj Mandi Parisw, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, being District Election Officer, Surguja (Ambikapur) (CG). 4. Returning Officer (Mandi), Mandi Kusmi, District Surguja(CG). 5. Virendra Kumar S/o Shri Kishnu,resident ofvillage Khajuriya Dih, Post Chaiido Kusmi, Distriet Surguja(CG). (WMT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTTUTION OF IND1A) fSB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aemhotri. J.) Present : Smt. RenuKochar,Advocateforthepetirioner. Shri Vinay Harit, Deputy Advocate Gcaeral for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 11th day ofAugust, 2008) 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. By this petition, tfae petitioner is challenging the election held for the post of Mandi President and other ofSee bearers in Mandi Samiti, Kusmi, District Suguja (CG). The election was held on 24.01.2006. The petitioner was one of the contestants for the post of Presi(ient, MandiSamiti, Kusmi, District Surguja (CG). :!{1 i II ^ 3. It is admitted case that there is an election Tribunal presided over by Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner, without approachingelection Tribunal, has directly approacfaed to this Court under article 226 of the Constitation oflndia. 4. It is true that the High Court exercises^ a plenary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia, but in case bf election proceedings, ifaltemative remedy i.e. election Tribunal isavailable, the High Court should not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 ofthe Constitution oflndia when the election Tribuaal is already available. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter ofHamek Singb Vs. Charanjit Singh and otiiers held tfaat in the interest ofjustice where the election is under challenge, tfae High Court should not exercise its jurisdictioa in normal circumstanees. This is not a case where a departure should be made from the normal rule by entertaining this petition. The petitioner ought to have approached tfae election Tribunal first before approaching to this Court. 6. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, and applying the well settled dicta laid ddwn by the Supreme Court on the issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the case, no case is made out for making out a departyre froni normal rule. Thus, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable, in view of the availability of sfatutory altemative remedy. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge .'2005(8)SCC383 •' ^ 1 [:'w •I -1 •