the expiry of the time for withdrawal of the nominations namely after 5 p.m on 24-11-2015. Since by the time the writ petition was filed, the candidates named in Ext.P4 had been declared elected, the remedy of the petitioners lies elsewhere. That apart, the petitioners will have to prove the case set out by them in the writ petition that though they had reached the head office of the bank on 22-11-2017 to submit their nominations, there was no one present in the bank to supply the nomination forms to them. The contention raised by the petitioners require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced in proof thereof. As on the date of presentation of the writ petition and as on the date of dismissal of the writ petition, the remedy by way of an election petition had not become time barred. The instant writ appeal was presented only on 03.1.2018. Merely for the reason that the petitioners did not choose to avail the alternate remedy available to them and consequently the remedy has now become time barred, we are not persuaded to entertain the writ appeal for the reason that the facts set out in the instant writ appeal would require oral and documentary evidence to be adduced in proof thereof. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned single Judge was
