Judgment : B. M. Lal, J. 1. BY this petition, Petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing notification dated 16-11-92 (Annexure 1), issued by District Magistrate Budaun for holding bye-election for the post of President. Municipal Board Budaun and also for quashing the election held on 23-5-93 pursuant to aforesaid notification. 2. ACCORDING t6 petitioner, impugned election was conducted in utter violation of the order passed by this Court on 21-5-93 as it was conducted on the basis of Electoral Roll modified only up in 1988 whereas by order dated 21-5-93 it was directed by this Court that the election for the post of president of the Municipal Board Budaun shall not be held on the basis of the electoral roll prepared in 1988. Further according to petitioner District Magistrate Budaun conducted the whole election on the basis of para 14 sub-para (I) read with para 75 of Order 1964 applicable for the election of members as such holding of the election was illegal from the very inception itself. Denying the averments made in the writ petition, respondents have filed counter affidavit and raised preliminary objection that instant writ petition. itself is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the face of specific provisions under Section 43-B of 'The United Provinces Municipalities Act 1916 (for short the Act) which gives right to challenge the election by means of election petition. The election petition can be presented by any member entitled to vote at the election. 3. IN view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents which questions jurisdiction of this Court to entertain instant writ petition, it is necessary to decide the preliminary objection first, without entering into merits of the case and without touching actual contoversy involved, in it. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection it appears better to have the provisions of the Act relevant for the purposes of deciding the preliminary objection. Impugned notification pertains to the election of the President of Municipal Board Badaun. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties on the preliminary objection it appears better to have the provisions of the Act relevant for the purposes of deciding the preliminary objection. Impugned notification pertains to the election of the President of Municipal Board Badaun. The term "Municipality' is a defined term in the Act under the definitions clause and means any local area which is a municipality by reason of a notification issued under Section 3 or, subject to the provisions of the said section, any local area which was a municipality at the time immediately preceding the commencement of this Act. The term "City" is also defined and means a municipality having a population of 1,00,000 or more inhabitants and any municipality which is a city by virtue of a notification under Section 3 of the Act. Thus the population of Budaun being less than 1,00,000 inhabitants, instead of City Board, Municipal Board is constituted there for which impugned notification was issued and the election was conducted. 5. ADMITTEDLY, by means of this petition petitioners have challenged the election to the office of the President of the Municipal Board Budaun. The election to the office of the President of the Municipal Board can be challenged only according to the procedure prescribed by the Act. Section 43-B of the Act is the procedure prescribed by the Act, sub-clause (1) of which very clearly speaks that the election of any person as President shall not be called in question, except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Provisions of the Act. 6. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the remedy to challenge the election of President by means of election petition is open only to the members of Board or to a candidate who has been defeated at the election or to any person whose nomination paper was rejected. 6. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that the remedy to challenge the election of President by means of election petition is open only to the members of Board or to a candidate who has been defeated at the election or to any person whose nomination paper was rejected. Learned Standing Counsel contended that the remedy to challenge the election is not confined to the persons referred above by the learned counsel for the petitioners rather it is open to any person whose name finds place in the voter list of Budaun and has got right to vote in the election, therefore, any person who has got franchise has right to challenge the election, consequently the impugned notification and the by election of President cannot be questioned by means of this petition by any one except by means of election petition. 7. WE have carefully considered the provisions of Section 43-B (1) of the Act which provides that the election of any person as President shall not be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act by any member entitled to vote at the election. The terms 'any member' used under sub-clause (1) of section 43-B is very crucial. In common parlance it indicates that it refers to the members of Board alone. But in the instant case it has not much significance. Therefore, terms 'any member' are to be construed with due care and are not to be read in isolation. Thus it has to be read with terms 'entitled to vote at the election'. Accordingly it comes to the extent that any member who has right to vote, in the election. Now it becomes very relevant as to who has right to vote in the election. For this purpose provisions of sub-clause (1) Section 43 and sub-clause (2) of Section 43 also become very relevant. 8. SUB-clause (1) of Section 43 deals with the election of President of the Board of a City whereas sub-clause (2) of Section 43 deals with the election of the President of Board (Municipal Board) other than the Board of a City referred in sub-clause (1). 8. SUB-clause (1) of Section 43 deals with the election of President of the Board of a City whereas sub-clause (2) of Section 43 deals with the election of the President of Board (Municipal Board) other than the Board of a City referred in sub-clause (1). The crucial difference is that the President of the Board of a City is to be elected by the members of such a Board whereas the President of a Municipal Board is to be elected by the electors in the Municipality. Thus for the purposes of electing President of the Board of a City only members of such a Board has right to vote whereas for the purposes of electing President of the Municipal Board all the electors in the municipality have right to vote. Now. it is necessary to point out that the provisions of Section 43-B (1) of the Act are meant for questioning the elections of both, the President of the Board of a City and the President of the Municipal Board. Therefore, the terms used under sub-clause (1) of Section 43-B are to be construed with reference to the provisions of sub-clause (I) of Section 43 and sub-clause (2) of Section 43. 9. IN the instant case the election of the President of Municipal Board Budaun is sought to be challenged, which is not the Board of City as observed to above and thus is not a Board referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 43 rather it is a Board referred in sub-section (2) of Section 43, therefore, in the instant, case, aforesaid terms 'any member' referred in sub-clause (1) of Section 43-B, means any one who has right to vote in the election of the President of a Municipal Board. Thus any elector in the municipality who is entitled to vote at the. election of President of Municipal Board Budaun has also right to challenge the election of President by means of election petition in accordance with the provisions of the Act. IN our opinion, the terms 'any member' as construed by us in the instant case, will make the provisions of the Act more democratic. 10. IN Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal, AIR 1975 SC 2140 , apex Court has ruled that the Jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of a president is an exclusive one conferred on the District Judge. 10. IN Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal, AIR 1975 SC 2140 , apex Court has ruled that the Jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election of a president is an exclusive one conferred on the District Judge. IN the circumstances there was no room for the High Court, exercising its powers under Article 226 in order to set aside, the election. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the firm opinion that instant petition is barred by effective, efficatious and statutory alternative remedy of filing election petition consequently it is dismissed as such. However, under the facts and circumstance of present case, since it is a matter of by election, with a view to meet the ends of justice we direct the authority concerned that in case within a fortnight from today, petitioners prefer election petition in accordance with the provisions of Act, same shall be disposed of on merits expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of its presentation along' with certified copy of this order and if need be subject to cooperation of parties by taking day to day proceedings. Petition dismissed.