delimitation of constituencies and allotment of seats to such constituencies. Here, it is the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereafter “1965 Act”, for short) which not only deals, in section 10, with ‘Elections and Publication of Names of Elected and Nominated Councillors’ but also provides, in section 21, how a dispute in respect of, inter alia , election of an elected councilor should be adjudicated. The remedy of the petitioners, therefore, would lie in a petition presented in the District Court in terms of subsection (1) of section 21. Mr. Palodkar was heard by us to contend that a dispute of the nature raised in these writ petitions is not capable of being adjudicated by the District Court. We have no reason to agree with him, yet, even if we assume this contention to be correct, the constitutional validity of section 21 could require a challenge on the principle of ubi jus ibi remedium and the lack of a forum. That is not the challenge in any of the writ petitions. Thus, resting on paragraph 68.8 of the decision in State of Goa (supra), we hold that these writ petitions are not maintainable.
