Arif Hussain v. The Chief Election Commission of lndia

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to accept the petitioner nomination dated 21t1O|2O2S while receiving the Format for issuing Certified copy of Extract form Electoral Roll (with Photograph) Annexure.54 issued by the Electoral Registration officer 046- Kukatpally Assembly Constituency with "Part Sl.NO. 1227 " by including the name of the petitioner in the final list of 61- Jubilee Hills, Assembly Constituency, Hyderabad district, Telangana State pending disposal of the Writ petition. counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD. ANWAR ALI REPRESENTING FoR SRI P. KHALEEL AHMED Counsel for the Respondent No.1 ,2,3,5 & 6: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SRI OMAR FAROOQ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Page I of7 I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition No.32536 of 2025 Ozu)ER '. (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of 6'h respondent in rejecting the nomination as illegal and consequently directed the respondents to consider petitioner's nomination for the Bye-Election of Jubilee Hills Assembly Constituency pursuant to the notification dated 13.10.2025 issued by the respondents.

2. Heard Mr.Mohd Anwar Ali, leamed counsei representing Mr.P.Khateel Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The grievance of petitioner herein is that he has filed nomination through Republican Party of India. The notification for the said elections was published on 13.10.2025. The last date for submission of nominations was 21.10.2025. The petitioner submitted the nomination on 21J0.2025. The Returning Officer / 6th responclent scrutinized the nomination submitted by the petitioner as also by the other candidates and found the nomination to be improper, and theref,ore the Election Officer rejected the same on 22.10 .2025 .

4. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petrtroner

5. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner submitted that rejection of the nomination of petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Representation of People Act, l95l (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that an opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioner to rectifu lacunas / defects before rejecting the nomination. He therefbre contended that having not granted such an opportunity, the rejection of nomination by the respondents is per se contrary to the Representation of People Act, 1951; and therefore prayed for allowing of the writ petition by setting aside the rejection of nomination of the petitioner. Pagc 3 of7

6. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the instant Writ Petition at the threshold is not maintainable for the reason that under the Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 80 specifically lays down an embargo on challenging an election except by way of an election petition. He further referred to Section 100 of the Act and stated that improper rejection of the nomination also is a ground available for challenging the rejection of nomination, but it has to be by way of an election petition alone.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on eittler side, it is relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, Namakkal, Salem Districtl, wherein a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under, viz., "27. Before concluding, I should refer to an argument which was strenuously pressed by the learned counsel for the 'ArR 1952 sc o4 Pagc ,1 of 7 appellant and which has been reproduced by one of the learned Judges of the High Court in these words : n " lt was next contended that if nominalion is put't cleclion. u dispute as to the validitlt of nominution is u disptile relating to election and that can be called in quc.stiott only in aqcordancc v,ith the provisions o.f Article 329(b) b), the prescntution o/'an elcction petition to the appropriate Tribunal and that the Returning Officer u,ould hava no jurisdiction b decide lhat matter. and it v,as.further argued that Section 36 o.f Act 43 o"f 195I would he ultra t,ires inasmuch as it confers on the Returning Officer a.iurisdiction v,hich. Article 329(b) c.onfers on a \'ribunal to be ctppointe:d in accordance tt,ith the article. " This argument displays gfeat dialecttcal ingenuity,, but it has no bearing on the result of this appeal and I think it can be "-ery shortly ansv,ered. Undcr Section 36 oJ'the Repre.rentution oJ'the I'eople AcL l95l, it is the dury,, of the Returning Officer to sc:rutinize the nomination papers to ensure that they comply v,ith the requirements o.l'the Act and decide all objections *-hich may be made to crny nominution. It is clear that unle.ss this duty is discharged properly. any number of candidates may stand for election v,ithout complying with the provisions of the Act and a great deal oJ'confusion may ensue. In discharging the statutory duty tmposed on him, the Returning Officer does not call in question any election. Scrutiny of nomination papers ts only a stage, though an important stage, in the election process. It is one oJ'the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed, and anything done towards tllg gmpletion of the election proceeding can by no stretch ofreasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single slep taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election. The decision of this appeal however turns nol on the construction oJ'rhe single wort) "election", but on the construction of the compendious expression - " no election shall be called in question" in its context and setting, with due regard to the scheme o-f Part W of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Evidently, the argument has no bearing on this method of approach to the question posed tn this appeal, which appears to me to be the only correct method.

28. We are informed that besides the Madras High Court, seven other State High Courts have held that they have no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding improper rejection of nomination papers- This view is in my opinion correct and must be afirmed. The appeal must therefore fail and is dismissed. In view of the nature ond importance of the points raised in lhis appeal, there should be no order to costs. "

8. In the instant case also, the nomination forms were to be filled up by 21.10.2025. The petitioner filed nomination on

21.10.2025, but the nomination was scrutinized on 22.10.2025 which stood rejected by the Election Officer. In the event nomination of the petitioner getting rejected, the only recourse now available for the petitioner in terms of provisions of law, i.e., Section 80 read with Section 100 of the Representation of People \\ \ .,i";r' : 'i, Act, 1951 would be to raise a dispute by way of an election petition

9. For all the aforesaid reasons, this court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. No costs. r0. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/. U. SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -/^L7 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI P. KHALEEL AHMED, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI OMAR FAROOQ, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CD Copies BN LS t? :l I HIGH COURT DATED i2811012025 v' tI ORDER WP.No.32536 of 2025 ./: ) * * -i\ F !.-' -. REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *@ W-6',