1 2025:CGHC:3199 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 291 of 2025 1 Ramgopal Singh S/o Shri Jaljeet Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Nerua, Post Office Kotadol Tehsil Kotadol, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 2 Ranu Bai W/o Shri Ramgopal Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Nerua, Post Office Kotadol Tehsil Kotadol, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Election Commission Sector 9, North Block, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Collector Collectorate District Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 3 Sub-Divisional Officer (R) Cum Election Registration Officer, Janpat Panchayat Bharatpur, District- Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) 4 Tehsildar District- Tehsil Bharatpur Manendragarh-Chirmiri-Bharatpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shivam Mishra, Advocate For Respondent NO. 1. : Shri S.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Shri R.K. Gupta Addl. A.G. with Ms. Anuja Sharma, P.L. 2 Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 17/01/2025 Heard. 1. By the present writ petition the petitioner is questioning the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by the SDO (Revenue) by which the claim of objection under the C.G. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (for short ‘Rules of 1995’) has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner raised an objection under Rule 11 to question the voter list prepared by which claim and objection were invited. He further submits that the objection has not been properly considered and the SDO has passed the order dated 30.11.2024. 3. Learned State counsel as well as the counsel for Election Commission submits that publication of final voter list has been done on 13.12.2024 and once the final publication of voter list has been done the petitioner has to prefer an appeal under Rule 12 (5) of the Rules of 1995. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of SDO and the provisions prescribed under the Rules, 1995. 5. As the objection has been decided and rejected by the Registration Officer under Rule 12 of the Rules 1995, the petitioner was having remedy to challenge the said order before the appellate authority as prescribed under Rule 12 (5) of the Rules, 1995, however the petitioner has not preferred the appeal before the appellate authority. 6. It is well settled law that if statutory remedy is available the writ court should not interfere (see Union Of India & Ors. Vs. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Ors. (2015) 6 SCC 773). 3 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, since the petitioner is having alternative remedy, the present petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Gouri/Jyoti