Khanwilkar, C. J. : -- 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged nomination of respondents No.3 to 8 as Alderman in Municipal Corporation, Sagar. This petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation by a resident of Krishnagunj Ward, Sagar.

2. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition has been raised by respondents No.3 to 8. According to the said respondents nomination of respondents No.3 to 8 made in exercise of powers under section 9(1)(c) by the State Government could be challenged only by way of election petition, as prescribed by section 441of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Indeed, this preliminary objection is loosely worded. The objection can only be to persuade the Court to decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. The remedy of Article 226 cannot be circumscribed by any statutory provision. Nevertheless, we would examine the purport of section 441 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The same reads thus :-

“441. Election Petitions. - (1) No election or nomination under this Act shall be called into question except by a petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this section.

(2) Such petition may be presented on one more of the grounds specified in section 441B -

(a) by any candidate at such election or nomination; or

(b) (i) in the case of an election of a Councillor, by any voter of the ward concerned;

(ii) in the case of nomination of a Councillor, by any Councillor,

(iii) in the case of election of Mayor, by any voter of the Municipal area to the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter referred as ‘the Court’) within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the election or nomination was held.

(3) No petition presented under sub-section (2) shall be admitted unless -

(i) it is presented within thirty days from the date on which the result of such election or nomination was notified in the Gazette; and

(ii) it is accompanied by a Government treasury receipt showing a deposit of two hundred and fifty rupees.

(4) A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition -

(a) where the petitioner, in addition to claiming a declaration that the election or nomination, as the case may be, of all or any of the returned candidates is void, claims a further declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected or nominated, all the contesting candidates other than the petitioner, and where no such further declaration is claimed, all the returned candidates;

(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practices are made in the petition.

(5) An election petition shall -

(a) contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies;

(b) with sufficient particulars, set forth the ground or grounds on which the election or nomination is called in question;

(c) be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), for the verification of pleadings.” (emphasis supplied.)

3. On plain language of sub-section (1), it is evident that the nomination made by the State Government under section 9(1)(c), being under the Act, can be called into question only by way of election petition presented in accordance with the scheme specified in section 441. This provision is a self contained code. Sub-section (2) of section 441 postulates that the petition filed under section 441 can be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in section 441B. For that, we may usefully refer to section 441B, in particular clause (a) thereof, which is applicable to the fact situation of this case. The same reads thus :-

“441B. Grounds for declaring elections or nomination to be void. -

(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the Court is of the opinion -

(a) that on the date of his election or nomination a returned candidate was not qualified or was disqualified, to be chosen as a Mayor or a Co