W.P No. 8689 of 2012 · Madhya Pradesh High Court

election disputes as enshrined in Article 243(z-g) of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent No. 4 being arbitrary and mala fide and as it amounts to thwarting the process of free and fair election, is totally and wholly unsustainable in law and therefore falls within the exceptions to non- interference in election process which has been enumerated and pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. The present case is one where the petitioner is assailing the rejection of his nomination papers which is one of the grounds enumerated in the statutory provisions to assail the election by a returned candidate by filing an election petition under 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. In the case of N.P.Ponnuswami v.

The State Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court have categorically held that as the law provides for provisions which confer special jurisdiction on Election Tribunals to assail the election of a returned candidate on specific grounds enumerated therein after the completion of the election all other remedies, including the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are excluded and, therefore, in such cases the Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at the stage of rejection of the nomination papers and leave the party to assail the election in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Following the aforesaid decisions of the Constitution Benches, the Supreme Court while taking into consideration the provisions of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, has held that the High Court should not entertain the writ petitions in election matters, specifically in relation to election disputes which are required to be decided in the election petitions to be filed and decided in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, more so, as the right to contest an election is a statutory right regulated by law, in the cases of Gurdeep Singh Dhillon v.

Satpal, (2006) 10 SCC 616, Jaspal Singh Arora v. State of M.P., (1998) 9 SCC 594, Kurapati Maria Das v. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan, (2009) 7 SCC 387, Anurag Narain Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303 and Manda Jaganath v. K.S.Rathnam, (2004) 7 SCC 492. The exceptions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which relate to breach of law or arbitrary or mala fide exercise of powers under the general conduct of elections relate to directions and powers by the Election Commission in those limited cases where the directions may result in thwarting the process of free and fair election. The exceptions do not relate to exercise of powers by the Returning Officers while rejecting nomination papers. In fact, the cases before the Supreme Court in the cases of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra) and Manda Jaganath (supra) were also cases of rejection of nomination papers in which the Supreme Court relegated the petitioners therein to avail the remedy available to them under the statutory provisions and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order at this Stage. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, if so advised, the petitioner would be at liberty to take up proceedings to assail the election by taking up all possible issues before the Election Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations/liberty the petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. (R.S.Jha) Judge