WA 180/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I.A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Heard Mr. S.R Singh, learned counsel, for the appellant, and Mr. S. Deka , learned counsel, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. By alleging that the supporters of the present appellant, who was an independent candidate in the election, which was held pursuant to the notification, dated 0 3.05.2010, had not been allowed to enter the Polling Station of 15 Chaengdai (Ak hui) ADC Constituency, Tamenglong, the appellant, his polling agent and also his election agent had made various representations to the authorities concerned, b ut no action(s), as were required under the law, had been taken by the responden ts/authorities concerned, the appellant filed a writ petition challenging the om ission, on the part of the authorities concerned, to take appropriate steps in t erms of the requirements of law, particularly, Rule 65 of Manipur (Hill Areas) D istrict Council (Election of Members) Rules, 2009, and for appropriate order(s). By order, dated 14.06.2010, which stands impugned in this appeal, a learned Sin gle Judge of this Court declined to entertain the writ petition. Aggrieved, the appellant has, now, preferred this appeal. The reasons, assigned by the learned Single Judge, while declining to entertain the writ petition, read as under: According to the petitioner, there were so many irregularities in that polling station including booth capturing and preventing the supporters of the petitione r from casting vote etc. Since the election process has already started and also since the disputed question of facts are involved in the present writ petition and since there is provision under Section 14 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) Distri ct Council Act, 1971, for filing this election petition, I am not inclined to en tertain this writ petition and interfere with the election process about to be c ompleted. Considering the fact that the process of election had already commenced, the g rievances of the appellant can be dealt with and remedied by way of an Election Petition coupled with the fact that the allegations, which the appellant has mad e, would require recording of evidence, the learned Single Judge, in our conside red view, acted rightly in declining, in such a case, to entertain the writ peti tion. We find no infirmity in the reasonings assigned by the learned Single Judg e. In the above view of the matter, this appeal is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.