JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.01.2021 whereby nomination of the petitioner for contesting the Municipal Election was rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioner has also prayed that direction may be issued to the Official respondents to allow the nomination of the petitioner for contesting the Municipal Elections for Keshoraipatan, Bundi, scheduled to be held on 28.01.2021. 2. This Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Pradeep Kumar Chaudhary with respect to maintainability of the present writ petition before this Court challenging the order of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner/nomination paper. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Returning Officer has acted arbitrarily in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for contesting the election. 4. Learned counsel submitted that on bare reading of the reason of rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has been rendered ineligible to contest the election only on account of registration of a case against him under Section 3(1) (r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter 'the Act of 1989'). 5. Learned counsel submitted that the requirement of law is that if any person is charged with offences where minimum punishment is 5 years then such person cannot be eligible to contest election. 6. Learned counsel submitted that under provision contained in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act of 1989, the punishment is minimum 6 months and maximum can extend upto 5 years and it cannot be said that the petitioner can be rendered ineligible on that count. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that if the Returning Officer acts arbitrarily ignoring the minimum requirement to see eligibility of the candidate and on whims and fancies, he rejects the nomination paper, the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless or he cannot be asked to avail the remedy which is provided under the Municipalities Act by filing Election Petition challenging the rejection of nomination paper. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. 8. Learned counsel submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., (1978) AIR SC 851 has found out a way for citizens to approach the High Court to facilitate the election process and if the prayer of the candidate is not to hold the election, the High Court can always interfere by exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. This Court finds that the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors., (1952) AIR SC 64 had considered the issue with regard to availability of writ jurisdiction in the matter of rejection of nomination paper of a candidate in election and writ has not been hold to be maintainable. 10. This Court finds that recently the Bombay High Court in its Full Bench judgment i.e. Writ Petition (ST.) No.26/2021 Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade & Ors. vs. The State Election Commission & Ors. decided vide order dated 13.01.2021, has also come to conclusion that rejection of nomination paper cannot be challenged by way of writ petition. The Bombay High Court has considered the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and Election Commission of India through Secretary Vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216 and has finally come to conclusion that the remedy available to a candidate against rejection of nomination paper, is to take appropriate remedy by way of election petition & not by filing a writ petition. 11. This Court also finds that the Madras High Court in the judgment dated 02.04.2019 passed in the case of J. Shanmugapriyadharsini vs. Chief Electoral Officer & Ors. (WP No.9972/2019) has also considered the similar issue and has come to conclusion that the remedy available to a candidate in the election against the rejection of nomination paper, is not by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. This Court finds that the writ petition filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 13. It goes without saying that if the petitioner has remedy available under the law, he is always free to avail the same.