AF^ v. Election

Election The Chhattisgarh, Commission, through the Chief State Elsction Siection Office, Raipur (CG). The Returning Officer, Nagar Patika Nigam, Chirm'ri, Dfetrict Koriya (CG).

Smt. Subhashini Singh, wife of Shri Jaikaran residsnt of Singh, aged about 45 years, Kapursingh Dafei, Chirmiri, District Koriya (GG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr: B.P. Sharma and Mr. K. Sharma, counse! for the petitioner. for the respondent - Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Acfvocate General No.lState. Ms. A. Sisodi^, counsei for the respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsei for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon this 24 dayofS »r The petitioner, by Uils petition, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer, whereby nomination paper of the respondent No.3 was accepted for election to the post of Mayor of MunfciDal CorDoration. Chirmiri and Drohibitina the eiection process in view of iftegal acceptance of nomination paper of the respondent No.3.

2) Notice was issued on 25-9-2006. However, no interim relief was granted. Thereafter, subsequentiy etection was heid on 19-12-2004 and the /" respondent No.3 was eiected by majority as Mayor of Municipat Corporation, Chirmiri. This oetition has now become infructuous as once the eiection had already taken piace, no chaltenge to the acceptance of nomination of a candidate can be made in writ oetition. !T there is anv chatlenae to the etection proceedings, the same is maintainable by filing an eiection petition under Articte 243-2G (b) of the Constitution of India. 3) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of M.P. and others , observed as under: "3.... ln view of the mode of chatienging the electipn by an election petition being prescribed by the M.P. iyiunicipalities Act, it is ciearthatthe election could not be called in question except by an electton pstition as provided under ttiat Act.

The bar to sntsrference by courts in eiectorai mattere contained in Articte 243-ZG of the Constitution was apparently qveriooked by the High Court sn aliowing the writ petition. Apart from the bar sunder Article 243-ZG, on settled prinGtpies interfersnce under Articie 226 of the Gonstitution for the purpose of seffing aside election to a municipaiity was not calied for because of the statutory Drovision for eiection petition and aiso the fact that an earlier writ petition for the same purpose by a defeated candidate had been dismissed by the High C-ourt. " The aforesaid view wasiateron referred with approvat by Hon'bie the Supreme Court in the matter of Harnek Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh and '•<, others . 4) in the matter of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakka! Constituency, Namakkal, Satera Dist, and others , the Hon'b!e Suoreme Court observed as under: "The taw of elections in india does not contemplate there should be two attacks on matters connected with election procssdings, one whiie they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articie 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been