JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsels. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the rejection of petitioner's candidature for election of ward no.7 of Panchayat Samiti, Pindwara which are to be held tomorrow on 2.2.2010. This petition was filed by the petitioner in this Court on 27.1.2010 and came up before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 28.1.2010 when the notices were issued and Mr. Anand Purohit, learned AAG was directed to take instructions and the matter was kept on 1.2.2010. The another coordinate Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sangeet Lodha directed the matter to be placed before another Bench and thereafter in pursuance of directions of Hon'ble Chief Justice, the matter has come up before this Court today. The matter was taken up out of turn in view of the urgency mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Reply to the writ petition has already been filed by the respondents and thus, both the learned counsels were heard at length. 4. The case of the petitioner is that after nomination paper of both petitioner Lalit Kumar and respondent No.7 Hemraj in both the capacity as party candidate and independent candidate were notified to have been rejected vide Annex.1 dated 11.1.2010, the list of candidates contesting the election prepared in Form No.5 under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 included the name of respondent No.7 Hemraj as independent candidate and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court inter alia on the ground that the nomination of respondent No.7 Hemraj had wrongly been included in the list of independent candidates, whereas one form was rejected by the Returning Officer. 5. Mr. Anand Purohit, learned AAG has raised serious preliminary objections to the maintainability of this writ petition in view of Article 243O of the Constitution of India and he submitted that in view of remedy of election petition available to the petitioner under Rule 80 and 81 of the said Rules of 1994, the said dispute cannot be raised in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that seriously disputed questions of facts are involved in the present writ petition like whether the nomination form of the petitioner was improperly rejected or that of the respondent No.7 Hemraj was improperly included. Mr. He submitted that seriously disputed questions of facts are involved in the present writ petition like whether the nomination form of the petitioner was improperly rejected or that of the respondent No.7 Hemraj was improperly included. Mr. Anand Purohit, learned AAG tried to explain that said respondent No.7 Hemraj had filed two nomination papers one as candidate for Indian National Congress and another as independent candidate for the said election. He submitted that while the nomination of respondent No.7 Hemraj as candidate of Indian National Congress party was rejected in view of the whitener applied on the said recommendation in prescribed form Kha after taking guidance from the Rajasthan State Election Commission vide letter dated 11.1.2010 (Annex.R/2), his nomination as independent candidate was found to be in order and was thus accepted by the Returning Officer on 11.1.2010. He submitted that list of candidates prepared vide Annex.1 might be an error wherein the nomination of said respondent No.7 Hemraj as independent candidate is shown to have been rejected by the Returning Officer, whereas the said form at page 107 as part of Annex.R/5 produced with the reply shows that the nomination form of respondent No.7 as independent candidate was accepted by the Returning Officer on 11.1.2010. He, therefore, submitted that the election dispute, if any, in this regard can be raised by the petitioner by way of election petition before the competent Court under the said Rules and there is no occasion for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that mere allegation of fraud or malafide on the part of the Returning Officer cannot be taken at the face value as alleged by the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and after going through the relevant pleadings and record and the relevant Rules, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. 6. Having heard the learned counsels and after going through the relevant pleadings and record and the relevant Rules, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. The Rules provide adequate alternative forum or remedy to the petitioner to raise the election dispute if any in this regard because the writ petition involves seriously disputed questions of facts which cannot be decided ex facie without proper evidence being led and proved in due process before the competent Civil Court or Election Tribunal as envisaged under the relevant Rules. This exercise cannot be undertaken in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, on this preliminary objection alone, this writ petition is summarily dismissed leaving the petitioner free to raise the dispute if any before the Election Tribunal in accordance with Rules.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******