Thakur Prasad v. Block Development Officer, Lanji — 1965 DIGILAW 14 (MP)

OPINION Naik J. 1. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Returning Officer, Gram Panchayat Elections, Block Lanji, dated 21-11-1964, rejecting his nomination paper for the elections to Gram Panchayat, Paldongri, from Ward No. 5. 2. The reason for rejecting his nomination paper is that, in the opinion of the Returning Officer, as his proposer Kashinath had subscribed two nomination papers, which he was not authorized to do under the Rules, both the nomination papers subscribed by him became invalid on that account. 3. It is not disputed that Kashinath had subscribed two nomination papers as a proposer-one in favour of the petitioner and the other in favour of respondent No. 3 Kamta Prasad. Both these were rejected; but as there was one more nomination paper in favour of respondent No. 3 Kamta Prasad, this other nomination paper, being otherwise found valid, was accepted. As respondent No. 3 was the only validly nominated candidate for the election, he was declared duly elected. 4. It is also not disputed that the nomination paper of the petitioner subscribed by Kashinath as a proposer was filed before the Returning Officer at 12.55 noon; while that in favour of respondent No. 3 which was also sub• scribed by the same proposer Kashinath, was filed at 2.11 p.m. 5. Rule 24 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963 provides that any person who is not subject to any disqualification as a voter under the Act and whose name is entered in the voters list for the ward for which the candidate is nominated may subscribe as proposer. He shall 'not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper'. The question is what this provision that he shall not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper mean. 6. Interpreting an analogous provision in the Central Provinces and Berar Panchayats Rules, 1948 (rule 3 of clause V, Part I), I had held in Ram Krishna Vs. Madhorao M.P. No. 29 of 1956 decided on the 20th July 1956 that where a duly qualified elector may subscribe only one nomination paper, whether as, a proposer or seconder, he, after subscribing one, becomes incompetent to subscribe another there after. Madhorao M.P. No. 29 of 1956 decided on the 20th July 1956 that where a duly qualified elector may subscribe only one nomination paper, whether as, a proposer or seconder, he, after subscribing one, becomes incompetent to subscribe another there after. Consequently, the nomination paper received first by the Returning Officer is alone valid, 'The' others', received thereafter are all invalid. 7. In Burgovne Vs. Collins (1882) 8 QBD 450, where the provision was that every candidate at a municipal election shall be nominated in writing subscribed by two burgesses as proposor and seconder, and by eight others as assenting to the nomination, and that 'each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper, but the same burgesses, or any of them, may subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more',' it was held that though all were duly filed in time, the first four received first in point of time were valid and that the fifth delivered subsequently was invalid. This was also the view of Kotval J. in Dr. Chhangaram Vs. Dy. Commr. Bhandara and others M.P. No. 397 of 1956, decided on the 6th September 1656 and Pandey, J. in Ramkumar Govindram Vs. Phoolchand Balmukand 1959 JLJ 446 . 8. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the language in the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules and the other Acts and Rules, which were considered in the cases cited above, was materially different and consequently the interpretation accepted as correct in, cases governed by those Acts and Rules need not necessarily be relevant for the interpretation of the Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, I, however, see no difference in the language of the two Rules. What has been expressed is a negative form in the Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules is expressed in a positive form in the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act and the English Municipal Elections Act. 'He shall not subscribes as proposer for more than one nomination paper is the same thing as saying he shall subscribe as proposer for one nomination paper and no more' or 'he shall subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more'. 'He shall not subscribes as proposer for more than one nomination paper is the same thing as saying he shall subscribe as proposer for one nomination paper and no more' or 'he shall subscribe as many nomination papers as there are vacancies to be filled, but no more'. The point has been put beyond dispute by the language used in rule 8 (5) of the English Parliamentary Elections Rules, which provides. "No person shall subscribe more" than one nomination paper at the same election and, if he does, his signature shall be inoperative on any' paper other than the one first delivered". Though the language is not so explicit in the Gram Panchyats and Cooption Rules, in my opinion, the intention is the same. 9. When the rule says that 'he shall not subscribe as proposer for more than one nomination paper', it does not make the proposer subscribing more than one an incompetent proposer for all the nomination papers that he has subscribed. All that the rule means to say is that he shall subscribe for one and one only, and that thereafter he shall not be competent to do so for any further nomination papers. The disqualification thus attaches to all but the first, because, when he subscribed to the first, he was a competent proposer. His disqualification as a proposer only arose thereafter. 10. To meet this objection, the learned counsel for respondent 3 contended that as the verb 'to subscribe' only means 'to sign', the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 having been signed first in point of time, that alone (the one signed in his favour) was valid and the nomination paper of the petitioner, which was signed later, though filed before the Returning Officer earlier, was invalid. The arguments appear to be the result of a confusion created due to giving the same meaning to the words 'nomination, paper' in the different context in 'which they have been used in the Rules. Obviously, the words have been used in two senses-one for the form which a proposer signs before it is filed and the other for the form after it is filed. Now, what a proposer signs or subscribes is a form of a nomination paper and it remains only a form and nothing more till it is filed before the Returning Officer. Now, what a proposer signs or subscribes is a form of a nomination paper and it remains only a form and nothing more till it is filed before the Returning Officer. It becomes a nomination paper only when it is duly field before the Returning Officer. What the Returning Officer scrutinises is a nomination paper duly filed before him and it is in respect of that nomination paper that under rule 27 (2) (b), he determines whether; the proposer was disqualified from subscribing it. Consequently, it is net the time of the signing of the form of a nomination paper which is of relevance for the purpose but the time of its presentation to the Returning Officer, at which point of time the subscribing of name by a proposer on a nomination paper, so filed becomes of importance and relevance. 11. In this view of the case, I am clearly of opinion that the nomination paper of the petitioner was wrongly rejected. At the time of its presentation to the Returning Officer, its proposer was not disqualified because till that time its proposer had, not subscribed as proposer for more than one nomination paper. It was only thereafter that when respondent No. 3 filed his nomination paper subscribed by the same proposer before the Returning' Officer, his (respondent No. 3's) nomination paper became invalid because, at that point of time, the proposer, of that nomination paper was incompetent to do so by reason of the fact that he had already subscribed one. 12. It was then contended that as there was an alternative remedy by way of an election petition, this Court ought not to interfere at this stage under its extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. No doubt, this Court does not usually interfere when an alternative remedy, which is equally convenient, expedient and efficacious, exists; but this is, by no means, an invariable rule. In the instant case, the Act and the Rules provide no remedy against the wrongful rejection of a nomination paper. By the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner is denied his right to seek election not only to the Gram Panchayat but also to the Tahsil and District Panchayats, as the elections to these bodies are by an indirect process. By the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner is denied his right to seek election not only to the Gram Panchayat but also to the Tahsil and District Panchayats, as the elections to these bodies are by an indirect process. The remedy by way of an election petition shall be available to the petitioner when all the elections are over. That remedy cannot, therefore, be said to be as expedient or efficacious. Besides, interference at this stage, when the elections are yet to be held, shall result in the saving of time and money to all concerned. It may also be mentioned that the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner, under the circumstances of the case, is so manifestly wrong that there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. In Vinod Kumar Vs. K.L. Jain 1965 JLJ 248 , where a nomination paper had been rejected on the ground that it had not correctly given the Ward No. Name of the Ward for which the candidate had been nominated, we interfered on the ground that the column which was said to have been wrongly filled was so ambiguous and confusing that it was wrong to penalise the petitioner for it. As for the desirability for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, I had said 'I agree that the petition should be allowed; but I would rather prefer to base my decision on the following considerations'. The observations apply with equal force to this case also. 13. The petition, therefore, succeeds. It is allowed with costs. The order of the Returning Officer, dated 21-11-1964, rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner Thakur Prasad is hereby quashed, as also the order declaring respondent No. 3 Kamta Prasad as the duly elected candidate. The petitioner, being a duly nominated candidate, shall now contest the election in respect of which respondent No. 3 has wrongly been declared as elected. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. Costs of the petitioner shall be paid by respondent No. 3 who shall bear his own costs. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Shiv Dayal J. - 14. Counsel's fee Rs. 100. Costs of the petitioner shall be paid by respondent No. 3 who shall bear his own costs. The outstanding amount of security shall be refunded to the petitioner. Shiv Dayal J. - 14. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question involved in this petition, I regret I have not been able to persuade myself to give any relief to the petitioner at this stage by interference with the process of the election. 15. The petitioner's contention is that his nomination paper could not be rejected. Under Rule 24, the proposer became disqualified to subscribe to a nomination paper of the other candidate. That disqualification arose a soon as the petitioner's nomination paper was presented to the Returning Officer, but not earlier. Shri Sen emphasises the word "subscribe" and contends that it is the nomination paper which was first signed by the proposer which was valid, while the other nomination paper to which lie subscribed subsequently was invalid. Alternatively, learned counsel contend, that by subscribing to nomination papers of two candidates, the propose became disqualified so that both the nomination papers were liable to be rejected. Thus, three constructions are put forward on Rule 24 (4). The Returning Officer, it appears, accepted the third interpretation and rejected all the nomination papers which were subscribed by the same proposer. The order of the Returning Officer has been declared to be final under Rule 27 (6). But it is now settled law that such finality is no bar to taking recourse to the remedy by way of an election petition; the only meaning of finality is that no appeal lies against an order of the Returning Officer. Thus, the petitioner has undoubtedly an alternative remedy specifically provided in the special law. 16. I should have thought that the Rules for the election of ‘Gram Panchayats" were simple and not as elaborate as those for elections under the Representation of the People Act. But the Courts are not concerned with the wisdom of the legislature. 17. When a new right is created by a statute or special law and that statute or special law further provides for a machinery for redress, the party complaining that his rights under the statute or special law have been violated, must resort to the remedies provided by the statute or special law. 18. 17. When a new right is created by a statute or special law and that statute or special law further provides for a machinery for redress, the party complaining that his rights under the statute or special law have been violated, must resort to the remedies provided by the statute or special law. 18. I do not say that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, where the order of the Returning Officer rejecting a nomination paper is challenged. But it is quite clear that the legislature in conferring finality upon the order of the Returning Officer under Rule 27 (6), necessarily intended that there should be no obstruction at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers and that the validity of the election on the material grounds must be challenged only by an election petition. "Election" in the present context, connotes the entire process of election beginning from the stage of nomination and culminating in a candidate being declared elected. That was the view pronounced by their Lordships in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer (1952) SCR 218. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge before us that the validity of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper is open to no challenge by way of an election petition, so that unless this Court interferes at this stage, the petitioner would be left without a remedy. 20. In this view of the matter, I would uphold the preliminary objection raised by Shri Sen and dismiss the petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. ORDER OF REFERENCE (24-12-64) T.P. Naik & Shivdayal, JJ.-21. As we have differed in our opinions, we hereby state the points of law on which we have differed, as required by rule 11 of Chapter I of the High Court Rules: (1) Whether, in this case, interference at this stage is called for? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, there whether the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was erroneous and, therefore, required to be quashed? The papers shall now be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the purpose of nominating one or mere Judges to deal with the matter. OPINION (13-1-65) Dixit C.J.-22. The papers shall now be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the purpose of nominating one or mere Judges to deal with the matter. OPINION (13-1-65) Dixit C.J.-22. This matter has come up before me on a difference of opinion having arisen between Naik and Shiv Dayal JJ., on points to be presently stated, in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order of the Returning Officer appointed for the Gram Panchayat elections of Lanji Block rejecting a nomination paper of the applicant Thakur Prasad for his election to the Gram Panchayat from Ward No. 5. 23. The material facts are that for the election of only one person as a Panch from the aforesaid Ward, the petitioner and the respondent No.3, Kamta Prasad, filed their nomination papers. The applicant's nomination paper was filed before the Returning Officer on a certain day at 12.55 P.M. while the nomination paper of Kamta Prasad was filed on the same day at 2.11 P.M. The petitioner's name was proposed by one Kashinath. That same Ferson also subscribed as proposer a nomination paper relating to Kamta Prasad. Another nomination of Kamta Prasad was also filed be some other person subscribing as his proposer. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of Thakur Prasad as well as of Kamta Prasad in which the proposer was Kashinath. He took the view that both these nomination papers were invalid inasmuch as Kashinath had subscribed as proposer two nomination papers contrary to rule 24 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He, however, accepted as valid the other nomination pap of Kamta Prasad and declared him to be elected after rejecting the to nomination papers filed by Kashinath proposing the petitioner and Kamta Prasad for the election. The petitioner then filed an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper contending that his nomination par subscribed by Kashinath as proposer being the earlier one was, valid and the one subscribed by Kashinath later in relation to Kamta Prasad was invalid. 24. Naik J., was inclined to accept the contention advanced on behalf of Thakur Prasad. 24. Naik J., was inclined to accept the contention advanced on behalf of Thakur Prasad. In regard to the contention urged before the Division Bench by the respondent Kamta Prasad that as the petitioner had an alt native remedy by was of an election petition no relief should he granted him under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Naik J., expressed opinion that the rule that the High Court does not usually interfere when alternative remedy, equally convenient, expedient and efficacious, exists by no means an invariable one; and that in the present case the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962, (hereinafter called the Act) and the r made there under provided no remedy against the wrongful rejection of nomination paper. He proceeded to say- "By the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner denied his right to seek election not only to the Gram Panchayat also to the Tahsil and District Panchayats, as the election to these bodies are by an indirect process. The remedy by way of an election petition shall be available to the petitioner when all the elections are over. That remedy cannot, therefore, be said to be as expedient or efficacious. Besides, interference at this stage, when the elections are yet to be held, shall result in the saving- of time and money to all concerned." 25. Shiv Dayal J., took the view that having regard to the principle that when a new right is created by a statute or a special law and that statute or law provides a machinery for redress, then the party complaining of a violation of his rights under the statute or law must resort to the special remedy provided by that statute or law, and regard being had to rule 27 (6) of the rules making an order passed by the Returning Officer, with regard to rejection of a nomination paper final, there should be no interference with the order of the Returning Officer, rejecting Thakur Prasad's nomination paper, in this petition. He further said that this Court had no doubt the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the legality of an order of the Returning Officer rejecting a nomination paper, but it was manifest by the Act and the rules made there under that the legislature intended that there should be no obstruction at the stage of scrutiny of the nomination papers; that the validity of the election must be challenged only by an election petition; and that the word "election", as used in the Act and the rules, must be given the same meaning which the Supreme Court gave to the term in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer 1952 SCR 218 = AIR 1952 SC 64 . He did not express any opinion on the merits of the case. 26. The points of law on which the learned Judges of the Division Bench differed, as stated by them, arc as follows- "(1) Whether, in this case, interference at this stage is called for? (2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, then, whether the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was erroneous and, therefore required to be quashed ?" 27. In connection with the first question, the points to be considered are whether the Act and the rules provide any remedy for calling into question an election on the ground of illegal rejection of a nomination paper and if such a remedy is provided, then whether it would be a proper exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to permit the petitioner to bypass that remedy and give him relief at this stage by issuing an appropriate direction or writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. It was not disputed before me, and indeed could not be, that the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962, and the rules made there under, provide a complete machinery for challenging an election by an election petition founded on the ground of illegal acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper. Section 357 of the Act says that no election or co-option notified under sections 20, 113, 170 and 216 shall be called into question except by a petition presented to the prescribed authority. Section 357 of the Act says that no election or co-option notified under sections 20, 113, 170 and 216 shall be called into question except by a petition presented to the prescribed authority. Rule 27 (6) of the rules prescribes that if the Returning Officer rejects a nomination paper, then he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such a rejection and the order passed by him shall be final. Rule 22 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) rules, 1962, published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette of 7th December 1962 at p. 807, inter alia lays down that if the prescribed authority is of opinion that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected, then that authority shall declare the election or co-option of the returned candidate to be void. It also says that if the prescribed authority is of the opinion that the result of the election or co-option, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected by improper acceptance of a nomination paper, then that authority shall declare the election or co-option of the returned candidate to be void. The authority to whom election petitions are to be presented has been prescribed by the Government Notification No. 197-152-XVIII-Rules dated the 24th September 1962, published in the M.P. Government Gazette dated the 12th October 1962. These provisions leave no doubt that a person seeking an election for the office of a Panch whose nomination paper has been rejected by the Returning Officer has the remedy of calling into question the election by filing an election petition after the election has been notified under section 20 in the prescribed manner. The manner of notifying an election or co-option has been prescribed by rule 80 of the M.P. Gram Panchayats Election and Cc-option Rules, 1963. 28. It must be mentioned that the provisions of the Act, the M.P. Gram Panchayats Election and Co-option Rules, 1963 and M.P. Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1962, relating to election and election disputes bear a close resemblance to the provisions contained on the matter of election and election disputes in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Whether it is necessary for the Gram Panchayat elections to have such elaborate rules when much simpler rules can be more effective and conducive to the expeditious completion of the election is a matter which, in my opinion, ought to receive serious consideration by the legislature and the Government. Be that as it may, it is manifest that the scheme of the Act and the two sets of the rules referred to above is to give a sort of finality to different stages of election and to provide that all matters arising during the election and all disputes relating to the election shall be determined and adjudicated upon, after the election is over and has been notified, by means of an election petition to be decided by the prescribed authority. The Act and the Rules made there under contemplate the whole process of election as one complete process, and the word 'election' as used therein embraces the whole procedure which consists of several stages and embraces many steps whereby a person is returned, whether or not it be found necessary to take poll. A rejection 'or acceptance of a nomination paper is included in the term. It is for securing that the election under the Act and the rules there under should be completed with expedition and without interruption that it is provided in the Act and the rules that no election or co-option notified under the relevant provision shall be called into question except by an election petition and that the order of the Returning Officer rejecting a nomination paper shall be final. In determining whether this Court should decline to interfere under' Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the orders of the Returning Officer before the election is completed, the fact that the right to hold an election, to stand for election and to be elected as a Panch to a Gram Panchayat and all rights created by the M.P. Panchayats Act, 1962 and the rules made there under, and that these provisions also provide a specific remedy for challenging a notified election, cannot be overlooked. This is, however, not to say that any of the provisions of the Act or the rules oust the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs or directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of elections under the Act. This is, however, not to say that any of the provisions of the Act or the rules oust the jurisdiction of this Court to issue writs or directions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of elections under the Act. Those provisions do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227, The question is one of propriety of interfering in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the orders of the Returning Officer before any election or co-option under the Act is notified. 29. Now, the Supreme Court has said in Rashid Ahmed Vs. Municipal Board 1950 SCR 566 = AIR 1950 SC 163 , K.S. Rashid & Son Vs. I.T.I. Commission 1954 SCR 738 = AIR 1954 SC 207 , Union of India Vs. T.R. Verma AIR 1957 SC 882 , and Thansing Vs. Supdt. of Taxes [4], and many other cases that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ; and that the existence of an alternative remedy does not oust the jurisdiction of the Court to issue a writ, but it is a thing to be taken into consideration in the matter of granting writs, and where such remedy exists, it would be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there are good grounds there for. In regard to taxation matters also, the Supreme Court has laid down in C.A. Abraham Vs; I.T. Officer AIR 1961 SC 609 , and Shivram Poddar Vs. I.T. Officer AIR 1964 SC 1095 , that where the taxing Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax and imposition of penalty and for obtaining redress in respect of any improper order by the taxing authority, then the aggrieved person cannot be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Again, in the case of Thansingh Vs. Supdt. Again, in the case of Thansingh Vs. Supdt. of Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419 , the Supreme Court made the following observations on the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution- "The jurisdiction of the High Court under Art 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Art. 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy ......Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Art, 226 of the Constitution the machinery created 'under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." So also; in N.P. Ponnuswami, Vs. Returning Officer 1952 SCR 218 , which is directly in point here, the Supreme Court has said, with reference to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Rules there under, which also prohibit an election being called in question except by an election petition and 'contemplate that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an' election should not be brought up at an intermediate stage, that the said Act is a self-contained enactment so far as the elections are concerned, and that where, a right or liability' is created by a Statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. These pronouncements of the Supreme Court leave no doubt that it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to interfere with an order of the Returning Officer is an election held under Panchayats Act of 1962, and the rules made there under; at any intermediate stage before the election is completed and notified and when the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being an election petition to the prescribed authority after election is over and notified. So to interfere would amount to virtually negativing the policy of the Legislature which has thought it fit to provide that an election to a Gram Panchayat or other body under the Act, if it is to be challenged should be challenged by an election petition to the prescribed authority so that the election may be completed expeditiously and without being delayed by any obstruction at an intermediate stage. 30. To me it appears that the matter is really concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Officer 1952 SCR 218 at pp. 230, 231 and 232. In that case, the Supreme Court after holding that the term election a used in Article 329 (b) the Constitution embraces the whose producer consisting of several stages and embraces many step whereby an elected member is returned whether or not was necessary to take poll, examined the provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, noted section 80 of that Act drafted in almost the same language as Article 329 (b) of Constitution providing that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition, and said that the said Act was a self-contained enactment so far as elections were concerned and that there was no provision in the Act to the effect that anything corrected with elections could be questioned at in intermediate stage. The Supreme Court then stated the well recognised rule that where a right or liability is created by statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of, and observed that- "......it will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act to state that the Act provides for only one remedy that remedy being an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage." It is dear from the observations of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer 1952 SCR 118 at pp. 230, 231 and 232 that on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act the Supreme Court took the view that when section 80 of that Act laid down that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition and the word "election" meant the whole procedure consisting of several stages and many steps, it would not be proper to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution at an intermediate stage with any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election. The Supreme Court then pointed out that because of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with any matter arising while the election is in progress is totally excluded. It is thus plain that in Ponnuswami's case (supra) the Supreme Court has held not only that Article 329 (b) of the Constitution excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in election matters, but also that even without Article 329 (b), on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, especially section 80 thereof, it would not be proper to permit a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution abandoning the special remedy given by the said Act for calling into question an election. As has been pointed out earlier, the provisions of the M.P Panchayats Act, 1962, and the rules made there under relating to elections, bear a close resemblance to; the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election, Rules, 1961. As has been pointed out earlier, the provisions of the M.P Panchayats Act, 1962, and the rules made there under relating to elections, bear a close resemblance to; the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election, Rules, 1961. It follows, therefore that on the authority of the Supreme Court's decision in Ponnuswami's case (supra), it must be held here that it would not be proper to exercise the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for interfering with the order of the Returning. Officer rejecting a nomination paper when section 357 of the M.P. Panchayats" Act, 1962, provides for only one remedy, namely, that of an election petition to be Presented after the election is over and notified. 31. The observations, which the Supreme Court made in Ponnuswami's case (supra) on two decisions of the Madras High Court in Sarvothama Rao Vs. Chairman, Municipal Council ILR 47 Mad. 585 = AIR 1923 Mad. 475, and Desi Chettiar Vs. Chinnasami Chettiar AIR 1928 Mad. 1271, furnish a complete answer to the contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner in the present case before the Division Bench as also before me that the remedy of an election petition was not expeditious or efficacious and that the considerable time and money would be saved and the person concerned would be relieved of hardship if relief were to be given to him in proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In Sarvothama Rao Vs. Chairman, Municipal Council ILR 47 Mad. 585, Wallace J. observed- "It is no consolation to tell him that he can stand for some other election. It is no remedy to tell him that he must let the election go and then have it set aside by petition and have a fresh election ordered." In regard to these observations, the Supreme Court said that they represented only one side of the picture and the same learned Judge presented the other side of the picture in the subsequent case, namely. Desi Chettiar Vs. Chinnasami Chettiar AIR 1928 Mad. 1271, in the following passage- "The petitioner is not without his remedy. His remedy lies in an election petition which we understand he has already put in. Desi Chettiar Vs. Chinnasami Chettiar AIR 1928 Mad. 1271, in the following passage- "The petitioner is not without his remedy. His remedy lies in an election petition which we understand he has already put in. It is argued for him that remedy which merely allows him to have set aside an election once held is not as efficacious as the one which would enable him to stop the election altogether; and certain observations of Sarvothama Rao Vs. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet ILR 47 Mad. 585 at p. 600, are quoted. In the first place, we do not see how the mere fact that the petitioner cannot get the election stopped and has his remedy only after it is over by an election petition, will in itself confer on him any right to obtain a writ. In the second place, these observations were directed to the consideration of the propriety of an injunction in a civil suit, a matter with which we are not concerned. And finally it may be observed that these remarks were made some years ago when the practice of individuals coming forward to stop elections in order that their own individual interest may be safeguarded was not so common. It is clear that there is another side of the question to be considered, namely, the inconvenience to the public administration of having elections and the business of Local Boards held up while individuals prosecute their individual grievances. We understand the election for the elective seats in this Union has been held up since 31st May because of this petition the result being that the electors have been unable since then to have any representation on the Board, and the Board is functioning, if indeed it is functioning, with a mere nominated fraction of its total strength; and this state of affairs the petitioner proposes to have continued until his own personal grievance is satisfied." The Supreme Court approved the view expressed by Wallace J. in the above passage, and while doing so said- "These observations which were made in regard to elections to Local Boards will apply with greater force to elections to Legislatures, because it does not require much argument to show that in a country which a democratic constitution in which the Legislatures have to play a very important role, it will lead to serious consequences if the elections are unduly protracted or obstructed". The hardship or inconvenience that may be caused to a person whose nomination paper has been rejected by the Returning Officer and who is required to file an election petition if he wishes to have the election set aside on the ground of illegal rejection of his nomination is an irrelevant consideration. So also is irrelevant the consideration that if the order of the Returning Officer rejecting an nomination paper of a person is not set aside at an intermediate stage and that person is not allowed to contest the election, then he may lose all the rights, benefits and privileges to which he would be entitled if elected as a Panch, to wit, the right to vote as a Panch for election to other bodies. 32. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred me to the decisions in Kanglu V. Chief Executive Officer ILR 1954 Nag. 876 and Jawaharlal Motilal Vs. Dy. Commissioner 1959 JLJ 414 -AIR MP 343 to support the contention that the petitioner should be granted relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The decision in Kanglu's case ILR 1954 Nag. 876 is not in point as there the election for Janapad Sabha was attacked on the ground of illegalities in the preparation of electoral rolls. In that case, any order of a Returning Officer passed in an election was not challenged. In the other case of Jawaharlal Motilal 1955 NLJ 183, a Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court had to construe section 22 (1) of the C.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 194B, which ran as follows- "No election or selection notified under section 20 shall be called into question except by a petition presented to the District Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the election or selection was held". It was held by the learned Judges that- "The bar is against interference, except in the manner provided by the statute, with an election or selection notified under section 20 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner is not questioning an election or selection, so notified. The bar created does not come into play because the stage at which the bar operates is not yet reached. In short, the bar created by the sub-section is against calling in question an election in the narrow sense, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The bar created does not come into play because the stage at which the bar operates is not yet reached. In short, the bar created by the sub-section is against calling in question an election in the narrow sense, as pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. We, therefore, hold that Ponnuswami's case AIR 1952 SC 54 is not applicable to the present facts". With all due deference to the learned Judges, the word 'notified' does not signify that so long as an election is not notified it can be questioned in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution; but it is that an election petition would be competent only after the election or selection is notified and not before. That word does not in any way curtail the wide meaning of the word 'election'. Thus if there is no occasion at all for notifying an election, as for example when the Returning Officer rejects all the nomination papers and fresh dates for filing the nomination papers are fixed, then the bar created by section 357 of the Act cannot apply. This is precisely what has been held in the case of Tundilal Vs. Returning Officer 1965 JLJ 252 , where the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of all the candidates seeking election, and this Court set aside in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of one candidate. It may be pointed out, that as against the case of Jawaharlal Motilal 1955 NLJ 183, there is a Full Bench, decision of this Court in Hitriprasad V. State of M.P. 1959 JLJ 414 -AIR MP 343 where it has been held that when the G.P. and Berar Local Government Act, 1948, provides a remedy of an election petition for challenging an election, then the High Court would not be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for interfering with an election disputes under the Act. 33. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this Court would properly be exercising its jurisdiction in declining to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioner Thakur Prasad's nomination paper and no interference is called for at this stage in that order. 33. For all these reasons, I am of the view that this Court would properly be exercising its jurisdiction in declining to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioner Thakur Prasad's nomination paper and no interference is called for at this stage in that order. In view of this answer to the first question it is unnecessary for me to consider and answer the second question. ORDER (3-2-65) T.P. Naik & Shivdayal, JJ.-1. In view of the opinion expressed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on a difference between un on the first point stated by us in our order dated 24-12-1964, the petition is dismissed as no interference at this stage is called for under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. 2. There shall be no order as to costs.