Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.07 16:06:42 +0530 WPC No. 829 of 2025 1. Geeta Pradhan W/o Naresh Pradhan Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Durgapali, Tehsil - Basna, District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh versus ... Petitioner 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Panchayat And Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. Returning/ Election Officer Janpad Panchayat Basna, Tehsil - Basna, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 3. SDO Basna District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh 4. Collector Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms Nupoor Sonkar, Panel Lawyer ... Respondents Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 7/2/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned orders dated 4/2/2025 and 5/2/2025 passed by the respondents No.2 & 3, respectively, by which the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of Sarpanch has been rejected. 2 2. Copies of the impugned orders have not been filed with the instant petition and the petitioner by moving an application (I.A.No.1 of 2025) sought for exemption from filing the same on the ground that the authorities have not provided copies of the said orders. 3. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner submitted the nomination form for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Durgapali for the election which is scheduled to be held on 11.02.2025. In respect of the said nomination, an objection was raised before the Returning Officer alleging, inter alia, the petitioner has not deposited an amount of Rs. 1,36,080/- which was lying in the account of panchayat. In respect of the said objection, the petitioner submitted her reply dated 04.02.2025 stating that she has already deposited an amount of Rs.1,36,080/ on 29.01.2025 and 03.02.2025. However, without appreciating the said fact the Returning Officer by order dated 04.02.2025 rejected the nomination form of the petitioner on the ground that the said payment of Rs. 1,36,080/- was not being reflected OnLine even though the receipts have been furnished by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said order has been challenged before the SDO, who dismissed the case of the petitioner by order dated 5-2-2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 and 05.02.2025 passed by the authorities in an illegal and arbitrary manner that too without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. He would further submit that before filing the nomination papers the petitioner had already cleared the outstanding dues and the receipts were already furnished to 3 the Returning Officer, but while rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner the said fact has not been considered. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. She would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter the authorities have rightly rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. The order impugned is just and proper and warranting no interference of this Court. 6. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. The above mentioned facts are not in dispute, the only issue is rejection of a nomination paper. Rejection of a nomination paper of the petitioner on whatsoever ground, it is during the process of election and this Court cannot entertain the petition amidst the election. In fact, the word ‘election’ is used to embrace the whole procedure of election and is not confined to the final result thereof- Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is included in the term. Thus, rejection of nomination is in the process of election. 8. It is the well settled law that whether the returning Officer is justified in rejecting the Form-B submitted by the petitioner herein or not, is not a matter for the Court to decide in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. (See-Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Others reported in 2004 7 SCC 492). 9. It is noteworthy to mention here that bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters has been provided under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which reads thus : 4 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--Notwithstanding anything this Constitution-- in (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; no election to any Panchayat shall be called in (b) question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. 10. Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1995’) speaks about grounds for declaring election to be void. Rule 21(1)(c) provides that : 21. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion- xxx xxx xxx that any nomination paper has been (c) improperly rejected; or From the above provision, it is apparent that the Rules, 1995 provide a remedy to question the improper rejection of nomination form. 11. Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs The Chief Election Commissioner [1978 (1) SCC 405] and N.P. Ponnuswami V. Returning Officer, Nanmakkal Constituency & Ors [AIR 1952 SC 64], Manda Jaganath (supra), and also considering Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Rule 21(1)(c) of the 5 Rules, 1995, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. 12. As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself.
Decision
13. Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Rahul Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge