SRI B v. BHASKARA RAO

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Election officer to consider the nomination submitted by the petitioner for the Bye-Election of Jubilee Hills Assembly Co nstituency. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 grant stay the election proceedings for the Bye-Election of Jubilee Hills Assembly Constituency, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. V. BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRIAVINASH DESAI SENIOR COUNSEL , REPRESE NTING MOHAMMED OMER FAROOQ The Court made the following: ORDER Page I ofB THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO Writ Petition No.32588 of 2025 ORDER (Per Hon'ble SriJustice P.Surn Koshyl 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 directing the Election Officer to consider petitioner's nomination for the Bye-Election of Jubilee Hills Assembly Constituency pursuant to the notification dated

06.10.2025, vide Memo No.2080/Elecs.D/2025-7, passed by the 2nd respondent.

2. Heard N/k.B.Vidya Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents

3. The grievance of petitioner herein is that he has filed nomination through Democratic Reforms Party. The notification l'age 2 of 8 for the said elections was published on 06.10.2025. The last date for subrnission of nominations w,as 21.10.2025. The petitioner submitted the nomination on )1.10.202s. The Election officer scrutinized the nomination submitted by the petitioner as also by the other candidates and found the nomination to be improper, and therefore the Election Officer rejected the same.

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

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of the nomination of petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Representation of People Act, I95l (for short, 'the Act') on the ground that an opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioner to rectify lacunas / defects before rejecting the nomination. She therefore 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, 195 l; and therefore prayed for allowing of the writ petition by setting aside the rejection of nomination of the petitioner. Page 3 of B

6. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel ior 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 either 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 Districtt, 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 'AtR tgsz sc e+ Page 4 o[ B appellant and which has been reproduced by one of the learned Judge.t o.f the High Court in these y,ords ; "lt v,as nexl conlcncletl thut if nomination is part election, o dispute (/.r to the validitl, o.f nomination is a dispule reluting lo e lection and thttt can ba called in que.stion onl.u- in ctccordance u'ith the provisions of Article 329(b) hy the presentation ef an election petition to the appropriatc l-riburul and that the Returning O/.ficer u'ould have no .jurisdiction to decide thal matter. and it vlcts Jilrrher argued that Section 36 o/'Act 43 o/' l95l would he ultra vires inasmuch as it confers on the Returning Officer a.iurisdiction which. Artic:le 329(h) conlbrs on a Tribunal to be appointed in accordance u,ith the article. " This argument displays great dialectical ingenuiry. but it has rut bearing on the result of this appeal and I think it can he ven, shortly answered. under section J6 o.f the Repre.sentation of the People Act, 1951, it is the dut.y qf the Returning Ol/icer to scrutinize the nomination papers to ensure that they utmply v,ilh the requirements of the Act emd clecitle all objectiorts u.hich nzuy be made to any nominotion. It is clear that unle.ss this dut1, is discharged properly, any number o/' candidates may stand for election without complying with the provisions o.f the Act and ct great deal of confuston may ensue. In discharging the statutory duty imposed on him, the Returning Officer does not call in question any election. scrutiny of nomination papers is only a stage, though an important stage, in the election process. lt is one of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be completed, and anything done rcwbds the completion oJ' the election proceeding can by no stretch ofreasoning be described as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in treating a single step taken in furtherance of an election as equivalent to election. T'he decision of this appeal however turns not on the construction of the single word "election", but on the construction of the cttmpendiou.s expression - " no election shall be called in question" in ils contexl and sctling; with due regard to the scheme of Part Xl/ o./ the C)onstitution and the Representation of the People Act, t95t. Evidentlv, the argument has no bearing on this method o/'apprortch to the question posed in this appeal, which appears to me to be lhe only correct melhod-

28. We are infor'med that besides the Madras High Court, seven other State High Courts have held that they have no jurisdiction under Article 226 oJ' the L'onstitutiqrt b enlertain petitions regarding improper re.iection of nomination papers. This view is in my opinion correct and must be affirmed. The appeal must therefore fail and is dismissed. In view of the nature and importance of the points raised in this 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 and rbjected 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 d''2 i.r, Page 6 ofB Representation of People 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 India. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. No costs.

10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To, TJ LS

1. One CC to Sri B. V. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri [\Iohammed Omer Farooq, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies \q- HIGH COURT DATED:2811012025 ORDER WP.No.32588 of 2025 :,--.- --- iii'.:. li ':::'. fri i 17 tun mf .' ,?, \ ".r- () Fn( .:r P,A.l'cir. . (', \:: " '1r REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION