Judgment :- (Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 22.07.2005, made in W.P.Nos.4773 and 4708 of 2005.) P.K. Misra, J. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2.The present writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions, at the stage of admission, stating that the matter relating to election could not be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and should be agitated before the normal forum. 3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that in the present case, a retired District Judge had been appointed as the Election Officer and since such person appointed by the High Court has committed illegality in conducting the election, the remedy lies in filing writ petition before the High Court and no relief can be obtained from any court. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 216 (Ramachandra G.Shinde v. State of Maharashtra). 4.We have carefully gone through the aforesaid decision. In our opinion, such decision is not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. Whether the election has been conducted in accordance with the provisions or not would depend upon on many disputed questions which can be better decided in a normal proceeding and not in a writ petition. In the decision relied upon by the appellants, the very basis of holding the election was in challenge and since such basis had been decided by the High Court on the basis of compromise and such order was found to be illegal, the Supreme Court had to observe that such matter could be decided only by High Court or Supreme Court. In the present case, there is no allegation that the order passed by this Court earlier appointing a person as the Election Officer was obtained by any fraud or suppression. We do not find any reason as to why, instead of pursuing the normal remedy available, the writ jurisdiction should be invoked in such matters. 5.Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1980) 4 SCC 211 (Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh). We do not find any reason as to why, instead of pursuing the normal remedy available, the writ jurisdiction should be invoked in such matters. 5.Learned counsel for the appellants also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (1980) 4 SCC 211 (Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh). In the said case, the election was relating to the Bar Council of Delhi and on the basis of some wrong interpretation of rules certain advocates had been disqualified. The question involved was a pure question of law and no factual question was involved. In such circumstances, the Supreme Court had affirmed the decision of the High Court in entertaining matters challenging election. 6.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in 2005 (1) CTC 399 (Thamil Arasan, S. v. R.Narayanan). In the said decision, it has been observed that in the absence of any remedy available under the statute, it would be always open to challenge such election before civil court. In the present case, according to us, the appellants, instead of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should have invoked any other normal remedy available either under statute or, if there is no provision available, they could have filed a suit in a civil court. 7.For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the order of the learned Single Judge, in rejecting the writ petitions is perfectly legal and justified. Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Connected WAMP (MD) Nos.436, 437 and 540 of 2005 are also dismissed.