IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1087 of 2008 (M/S) Furkan S/O Bhudhu @ Hamid and two others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand, through District Magistrate, Haridwar and another. … Respondents. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondent no.1. Date July 04, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents no.1. 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 impugned list dated 27-6-2008 issued by the respondent no.2 (contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). According to the petitioners, they are the voters in Voter List issued by the respondent no.2 for the election of Directors of Jhabrera Kisan Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. The list was issued by respondent no.2 after the scrutiny of the persons, who were the defaulters of the society. The petitioners filed their nominations before the respondent no.2, but on 27-6-2008, the respondent no. 2 has issued the impugned list rejecting the nominations of the petitioners and other persons and published the 2 list showing the persons as having been declared elected in the absence of sufficient contesting candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that the rejection of their nominations by respondent no.2 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.2. 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 (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. 3 (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. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners today on payment of usual charges. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 4 5