CWP No.15318 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 15318 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19 - 7 - 2010 Taranjit Singh ....Petitioner v. Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab ....Respondents and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate for Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.4. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari with a prayer that order dated 1.10.2009, Annexure P4, whereby the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner be set aside. It is not disputed that petitioner has a remedy of filing an election petition. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench CWP No.15318 of 2009 [2] judgment of this Court in Kuldip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995(1) RRR 16 to contend that where the question whether the nomination papers were rightly rejected or not, is to be decided in light of the rules and regulations, then this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution can quash the order in rarest of the rare cases. In Kuldip Singh's case (supra), reliance was placed on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nachhattar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993(3) RRR 693. It has been further submitted that in case ratio of a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 1999(2) PLJ 333 is followed, then it is apparent that nomination papers of the petitioner were wrongly rejected. Ms.Ambika Luthra, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 has stated that whether resolution Annexure P3/A was validly passed or not, is a disputed question of fact and record is required to be requisitioned to prove the same. It is further submitted that in Civil Writ Petition No.15271 of 2009, the petitioner was relegated to avail the remedy of election petition. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. I have also perused the judgment in Kuldip Singh's case (supra). It has been held therein that the Court exercising restrain must not clip its wings, though interference should be made to use the oft repeated words, in the `rarest of rare' cases. Since the petitioner has alternative remedy of filing an election petition, the present writ petition is disposed of by the following directions:- (a) The petitioner shall file an election petition before the concerned authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified CWP No.15318 of 2009 [3] copy of this order; and (b) In case the election petition is filed within the time specified above, the concerned authority shall decide the same within one month thereafter. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) July 19, 2010. JUDGE RC