Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 635 (MP)

Bhanu Pratap Singh Tomar v. State of M. P.

2005-06-09

RAJENDRA MENON

body2005
JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order passed by the Returning Officer exercising jurisdiction under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 read with the rules framed for conducting elections as per the Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Samiti Nirvachan) Rules. 1997 rejecting the objection filed by the petitioner and permitting Respondent No.5 to contest election in a quota fixed for Scheduled Tribe Lady. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No. 5 is not a Scheduled Tribe Lady and his objection has not been properly considered. It is stated that Returning Officer has illegally and arbitrarily rejected his objection with regard to candidature of Respondent No.5 and, therefore, petitioner seeks interference by this Court in this writ petition for permitting the petitioner to participate in the elections. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petition and it is stated by the respondents that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam and Others 2004 (7) SCC 492 , Ramesh Rewatkar and Others v. Returning Officer, Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pandhurna and others 1986 JLJ 489 and the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Neetu Kathoria (Smt.) v. State of M.P. and others 2003 Revenue Nirnay 345, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the process of election and rejection of nomination paper is not maintainable. It is seen that a specific statutory rule being the Krishi Upaj Mandi (Mandi Sarriiti Nirvachan) Rules, 1997 has been enacted and provisions have been made for conducting of elections so also for challenging the elections by way of an election petition. In this petition nomination papers submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on certain objections raised by the private respondents. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Manda Jaganath (supra) interference by this Court in the matter, once the election process is commenced, is not permissible. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the improper rejection of the nomination paper, petitioner is required to challenge the election by filing a election petition as per Nirvachan Niyam of 1997. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the improper rejection of the nomination paper, petitioner is required to challenge the election by filing a election petition as per Nirvachan Niyam of 1997. This Court gets jurisdiction to interfere in a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution only if the rejection of nomination paper can be termed as per se illegal being contrary to all norms of laws and justice. Present is not a case falling in the said category. In the present case, nomination paper has been rejected on the basis of objections raised before the Returning Officer after objectively considering the same. That being so, this Court cannot interfere in this matter pertaining to an election dispute. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench in the case of Neetu Kathoria (supra), the Supreme Court in the case of Manda Jaganath (supra) relied upon by Shri Raghvendra Dixit during the course of hearing, I find no ground to interfere in the matter. It has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Neetu Kathoria (supra) that improper rejection of nomination paper is a ground for challenging the elections to the Krishi Upaj Mandi by filing an election petition and a writ petition is not a. . appropriate remedy for the same. Keeping in view the observations and findings recorded in para 5 of the aforesaid judgment by the Division Bench, it is not a fit case for interference exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Petitioner is required to challenge the election and interference in the process of election which already commenced and when voting is to took place in the next week, i.e. 13.6.2005. it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.