Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1321 (MP)

JASWANT SINGH v. CHEF ELECTION COMMISSION

2008-11-12

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 8. 11. 2008 passed by the Returning Officer, Vidhan sabha Constituency No. 143 Silvani District, Raisen rejecting the nomination papers of the petitioner for State Assembly election. ( 2. ) THE facts in narrow compass are that as per the schedule notified by Election commission of India for election of the member of the State Legislative Assembly in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the last date of filing nomination papers was 7. 11. 2008. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was declared as an authorized candidate by Indian National Congress Party for contesting election from Silvani No. 143 Constituency in the District Raisen. The petitioner had filed nomination papers on 3. 11. 2008 giving a declaration in the prescribed form that he was an authorized candidate of Indian National Congress i. e. a Recognized national Political Party. The petitioner being the authorized candidate of Indian national Congress Party was required to submit Form A and Form B in terms of the provisions of Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968. ( 3. ) IT is not in dispute that the petitioner had not submitted Forms A and B along with the nomination papers or till the last date of filing nomination. The Forms A and B were stated to be submitted by the petitioner before the Returning Officer at 11:05 a. m. on 8. 11. 2008. The Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny rejected the petitioners nomination papers by the impugned order dated 8. 11. 2008 on the ground that the last date for submitted Forms A and B and of nomination papers was 7. 11. 2008 upto 3 O clock whereas the petitioner submitted the Forms A and B on 8. 11. 2008 at 11:05 O clock contrary to the directions contained in the handbook of Returning Officer and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, ,1968. Aggrieved with the rejection of the nomination papers, the petitioner has approached this court by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 4. ) SHRI Naman Nagrath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner failed to submit Forms 2a and 2b which as per Rule 4 of the conduct of Election Rules is not a defect of substantial nature. ( 4. ) SHRI Naman Nagrath learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner failed to submit Forms 2a and 2b which as per Rule 4 of the conduct of Election Rules is not a defect of substantial nature. Section 36 (4)provides that the Returning Officer will not reject nomination papers on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial nature, therefore, the rejection is per se illegal. He further submitted that the petitioner had submitted the requisite Forms aand B prior to the scrutiny, therefore, the same ought to have been accepted by the Returning Officer. He further submitted that since the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected the nomination papers, therefore, interference is required in writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 and such an interference at this stage would facilitate the elections and ensure fair elections. In support of his submission he placed reliance upon the judgments reported in the matter of Rakesh Kumar vs. Sunil Kumar 1999 (2) SCC 489 and Election Commisssion of India vs. Ashok Kumar and others AIR 2000 SC 2979 ( 5. ) SHRI R. N. Singh, learned Advocate General, who is present to assist the court, has placed before the court the judgments relating to the scope of interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the election matters. ( 6. ) SHRI K. K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. I, on advance notice, submitted that the correctness of the order of rejection of nomination papers is a matter of enquiry which can only be examined in the election petition. He submitted that Forms A and B which the petitioner failed to submit within time is different from Forms 2a and 2b, therefore, the very foundation of the case set up by the petitioner is defective. Placing reliance upon section 33 of the Act, he submitted that the nomination paper complete in all respect, was required to be presented before the prescribed time and date and the nomination papers of the petitioner which was presented within prescribed time was not a complete nomination paper since it was not accompanied by Forms A and B, therefore, the presentation of nomination papers itself was defective which was not a curable defect. Hence, the nomination paper has rightly been rejected. Hence, the nomination paper has rightly been rejected. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in the matter of krishna Mohini (Ms) versus Mohinder Nath Sofat 2000 (1) SCC 145 . ( 7. ) IN the present matter, the first question, which arises for consideration, is whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India against the order of the returning officer rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner is maintainable? ( 8. ) ARTICLE 329 of the Constitution of India which is the last Article in Part XV of the Constitution deals with the bar of interference by court in electoral matters and provides as under:- 329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.-1 [ Not with standing anything in this Constitution 2 [ * * *]-] (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or tne allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the house or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. The Article starts with the non obstante clause. For the present controversy, clause (b) is relevant. As per this clause the election of Legislative Assembly of a State can not be called in question except by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority in the prescribed manner. ( 9. ) UNDER Art. 329 (b) bar is for questioning the "election". In the present case, the petitioner has come to this court at the stage of rejection of the nomination papers therefore it is to be seen whether the stage of rejection of the nomination papers is covered within the meaning of word "election" occurring in clause (b)of Art. 329. ) UNDER Art. 329 (b) bar is for questioning the "election". In the present case, the petitioner has come to this court at the stage of rejection of the nomination papers therefore it is to be seen whether the stage of rejection of the nomination papers is covered within the meaning of word "election" occurring in clause (b)of Art. 329. A Bench of six Honble Judges of the Supreme Court in the matter of N. P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 has examined this issue and has held that the word "election" has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in wider sense which include the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the Legislature. Supreme Court in the matter of Ponnuswami held that:- 7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Xxxxx xxxxxxxx It seems to me that the word "election" has been" used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression "conduct of elections" in article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be reaa consistently into the other provisions, which occur in Part XV including Article 329 (6 ). That the word "election" bears this wide meaning whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins. " The Supreme Court has further held that:- "the discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word "election" can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process. " ( 10. ) ANOTHER Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1)SCC 405 while considering Article 329 of the Constitution held that the election has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of the returned candidate. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 1978 (1)SCC 405 while considering Article 329 of the Constitution held that the election has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of the returned candidate. Every step from start to finish of the total process constitutes "election" and not merely the conclusion or culmination. The view of the Constitution of the supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gills case is that: - 22. At the first blush we get the comprehensive impression that every calling in question of an election save, at the end, by an election petition, is forbidden. What, then, is an election? What is "calling in question"? Every step from start to finish of the total process constitutes "election", not merely the conclusion or culmination xxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxx xxxx xxx 92. Diffusion, even more elaborate discussion, tends to blur the precision of the conclusion in a judgment and so it is meet that we synopsize the formulations. Of course, the condensed statement we make is for convenience, not for exclusion of the relevance or attenuation of the binding impact of the detailed argumentation. For this limited purpose, we set down our holdings: " (1) (a) Article 329 (b)"- is a blanket ban on litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its officers for carrying forward the process of election to its culmination in the formal declaration of the result. (b) Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of the returned candidate. The filling of the nomination forms, its scrutiny and acceptance or rejection is part of the process which is to be gone through to return a candidate, it is a stage after the issuance of presidential notification for election, hence, covered within the meaning of "election" under Article 329. ( 11. ) CLAUSE (b) of Article 329 provides that "no election shall be called in question". Therefore, in view of the specific bar, which has been created under Article 329 (b), whether the writ petition against the order of rejection of nomination paper can be entertained? ( 11. ) CLAUSE (b) of Article 329 provides that "no election shall be called in question". Therefore, in view of the specific bar, which has been created under Article 329 (b), whether the writ petition against the order of rejection of nomination paper can be entertained? Supreme Court in the matter of Poonuswami (supra) has examined this question and has held that two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one under Article 226 and another by means of election petition, is not contemplated under the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only by way of election petition before the Special Tribunal. Supreme Court in the matter of Poonuswami (supra) held that :- "9. The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People act, which, as I shall point out later, seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a Special Tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any court xx xx xx xx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Supreme Court in the matter of Poonuswami finally held that: 15. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The question which has to be asked is what conceivable reason the legislature could have had to leave only matters connected with nominations subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution. Supreme Court in the matter of Poonuswami finally held that: 15. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The question which has to be asked is what conceivable reason the legislature could have had to leave only matters connected with nominations subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution. If Part XV of the Constitution is a code by itself i. e. , it creates rights and provides for their enforcement by a Special Tribunal to the exclusion of all courts including the High Court, there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one small part of the election process to be made the subject matter of contest before the High Courts and thereby upset the time-schedule of the elections. The more reasonable view seems to be that article 329 covers all "electoral matters xx xx xx xx xxxx. ( 12. ) ANOTHER Constitution Bench of Mohinder Singh Gill considered the question of availability of two parallel remedies one by way of writ petition under Article 226 and another by way of election petition under the Representation of People act and held that there is a non-obstante clause in Article 329 and, therefore. Article 226 stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Election Commission of India (supra ). Article 226 stands pushed out where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election. ( 13. ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment in the matter of Election Commission of India (supra ). In that judgment, the Supreme Court after referring to the judgment in the matter of Poonuswami and Mohinder Singh Gill has noted the controversies which may not attract the wrath of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution such as the case where Election Commission which is repository of power may act in breach of law or arbitrarily or malafide or dispute which may not amount to calling in question an election it if sub serves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election or an order of Election Commission which far from accomplishing and completing the process of election may thwart the course of the election and adopt a course which is wholly unwarranted by the Constitution and unsustainable in law or a case where before the declaration of the result of election assistance of the court may be urgently and immediately needed to preserve the evidence without in any manner intermeddling with or thwarting the progress of election or a case where the relief sought for may not interfere or intermeddle with the process of the election but the jurisdiction of the Court is sought to be invoked for correcting the process of election taking care of such aberrations as can be taken care of only at that moment failing which the flowing stream of election process may either stop or break its bounds and spill over. The Judgment in the matter of Election commission of India (supra) has been rendered by three Honble Judges of the supreme Court which mentions in general controversies when interference can be made, but the judgment in the matter of Poonuswami is a judgment by the bench of six Honble Judges which specifically deals with the issue of filing of the writ petition against the order rejecting the nomination and held that an order rejecting the nomination can not be challenged by way of writ petition under Article 226. Thus, the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 2977 in the matter of Election Commission of India (supra) does not carry the petitioners case any further. ( 14. Thus, the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 2977 in the matter of Election Commission of India (supra) does not carry the petitioners case any further. ( 14. ) IT is worth noting that interference at this stage of rejection of the nomination paper can not be held to be interference to accelerate the completion of the election or act in furtherance of the election. If at the stage of rejection of the nomination paper the writ petition is entertained against the order rejecting nomination then against such an order process of litigation in the form of writ petition, writ appeal, special Leave Petition will start which would affect the process of election, therefore, it would be interference with the process of election. ( 15. ) THERE is yet another reason why interference can not be done in exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 against the order rejecting the nomination form. Representation of People Act, 1951 has been enacted with the object to provide for the qualifications and disqualifications; of members, the corrupt practices and the other offence at or in connection with the elections of the house of Parliament and houses of Legislature of each State and decision of doubts and disputes arising out of order in connection with such elections. Section 80 of the representation of People Act which deals with the election petition specifically provides that:- 80. Election petitions.- No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Thus, in addition to the constitutional bar there is also a statutory bar to call in question any election by any other mode except by an election petition presented in accordance with Part VI of the Representation of People Act, 1951. In this regard, Section 100 of the Representation of People Act is also relevant, which contained the grounds for declaring election to be void. Under clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 100 improper rejection of nomination forms is a ground for declaring the election to be void. Thus, remedy of election petition is available against the improper rejection of nomination forms is a ground for declaring the election to be void. Thus, remedy of election petition is available against the improper rejection of nomination form. ( 16. Thus, remedy of election petition is available against the improper rejection of nomination forms is a ground for declaring the election to be void. Thus, remedy of election petition is available against the improper rejection of nomination form. ( 16. ) THE issue is now when the Representation of People Act specifically provides the improper rejection of the nomination paper as a ground for challenging the election in the election petition whether in the midst of the election process, writ petition can be filed to challenge the order rejecting the nomination paper? ( 17. ) SUPREME Court in the matter of Poonuswami (supra) has considered this aspect and has held that the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper available under the election law can not be urged in any other manner at any other stage before any other court except in accordance with the process prescribed under the election law. If it is permitted to be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, the provisions contained in Article 329 (b) will lose its significance. The Supreme Court in the matter of Poonuswami held that:- 9. xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx xx xxxx xx xxx xxxx. It seems to methat under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question Article 392 (b)was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Art. 329 (b) and in setting up a special tribunal. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Art. 329 (b) and in setting up a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. ( 18. ) THE clear view of the Supreme Court is that the Representation of People act, 1951 is a self-contained code, which provides only for one remedy i. e. by way of election petition. Supreme Court in the matter of Ponnuswami (supra)further held that: 11. xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxx xxxxx. Obviously, the Act is a self- contained enactment so far as elections are concerned, which means that whenever we have to ascertain the true position in regard to any matter connected with elections, we have only to look at the Act and the rules made thereunder. The provisions of the Act which are material to the present discussion are Ss. 80,100,105 and 170, and the provisions of chap, II of Part IV dealing with the form of election petitions, their contents and the reliefs which may be sought in them. Section 80, which is drafted in almost the same language as Art. 329 (b), provides that "no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part. " Section 100, as we have already seen, provides for the grounds on which an election may be called in question, one of which is the improper rejection of a nomination paper. Section 105 says that "every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive. " Section 170 provides that "no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the Returning Officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election. Section 105 says that "every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be final and conclusive. " Section 170 provides that "no civil Court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by the Returning Officer or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election. " these are the main provisions regarding election matters being judicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is no provision any where to the effect that anything connected with elections can be questioned at an intermediate stage. " 12. It is now well-recognised 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 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx i think 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 by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. " Thus, the issue relating to the interference by the Supreme Court in writ petition against the order of rejection of the nomination papers has been concluded by the judgment of Six Honble Judges of the Supreme Court in the matter of poonuswami (supra ). ( 19. ) IT is worth noting that even the facts in Poonuswamis case were similar to the present one. In Poonuswamis case the appellants nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer and the writ petition was filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court praying for quashing of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and including his name in the list of the valid nomination to be published. Same is the relief claimed by the present petitioner in the relief clause of the writ petition. In poonuswamis case the High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer in view of the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. Same is the relief claimed by the present petitioner in the relief clause of the writ petition. In poonuswamis case the High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer in view of the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. The Supreme court in appeal affirmed the view of the High Court that the High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain petition regarding improper rejection of the nomination paper. ( 20. ) THE judgment delivered in the matter of Poonuswami (supra) is still holding the field and has been subsequently relied upon. Supreme Court in the matter of manda Jaganath vs. K. S. Rathnam and others reported in 2004 (7) SCC 492 considered the same issue relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court in election matters and held that such matters cannot be decided by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and can be agitated only in an election petition. In the matter of Manda Jaganath (supra), the argument was raised that the defect noted by the Returning Officer is merely a curable irregularity and not the defect of substantial nature. Similar argument has been raised in the present case also but such an argument was rejected by the Supreme Court holding that these arguments can be addressed in properly constituted election petition. The Supreme Court in the matter of Manda Jaganath (supra) held that: 23. The next argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that as per the provisions of Section 36 of the R. R Act, Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and clause 30 of the election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the omissions found by the Returning Officer in Form B filed by the respondent herein are all curable irregularities and are not defects of substantial nature, calling for rejection of the nomination paper. We think these arguments based on the provisions of the statutes. Rules and Orders are all arguments which can be addressed in a properly constituted election petition, if need be, and cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of the Returning officer which is prima facie just and proper in our opinion. ( 21. We think these arguments based on the provisions of the statutes. Rules and Orders are all arguments which can be addressed in a properly constituted election petition, if need be, and cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of the Returning officer which is prima facie just and proper in our opinion. ( 21. ) THE Supreme Court in the matter of Harnek Singh vs. Charanjit Singh and others reported in 2005 (8) SCC 383 has examined the same issue relating to the maintainability and scope of interference under Article 226 in the matter relating to election to the post of Chairman Panchayat Samiti and held that section 89 (1) (d) (iv) of Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 to be in pan materia with S. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and writ petition as not maintainable. ( 22. ) IN the matter of Avtar Singh Hit vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 487 , Supreme Court, while examining the issue of maintainability of writ petition in an election matter has taken note of the judgments delivered from time to time and held that:-21. In Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 , it was held that if during the process of election, at any intermediate or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law. 22. The same view has been taken in regard to the elections held in accordance with some statutory provision where Article 329 (b) of the Constitution is not applicable and they are not governed by Representation of the People Act. In K. K. Shrivastava vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain AIR 1978 SC 1703, the dispute related to election to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh under the Indian Advocates Act and Rule 31 of Election Rules framed by Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh provided that all disputes arising under the Rule shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an election tribunal. The defeated candidate approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the election which was allowed by the High Court. This Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: - "where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy the Court should keep its hands off. This is more particularly so where the dispute relates to an election. Still more so where there is a statutorily prescribed remedy which almost reads in mandatory terms. " ( 23. ) IN Gujarat University vs. Shri N. U. Rajguru AIR 1988 SC 66 , the dispute related to election to the Court of Gujarat University. Some teachers challenged the holding of elections by means of a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed. In appeal this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court with the following observations: - "it is well settled that where a statute provides for election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution by-passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. " ( 24. ) THERE are several other decisions where the same view has been taken. S. T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan AIR 1988 SC 616 is a case relating to election to the office of Chairman of a panchayat union under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958 where it was held that the parties who are aggrieved by the result of the election can question the validity of an election by an election petition which is an effective alternative remedy and it is hot appropriate for the High Court to interfere with the election process. ( 25. ( 25. ) C. Subrahmanyam vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu 1998 (8) SCC 703 is a case relating to election under the Andhra Pradesh panchayat Raj Act and in a short judgment it was observed that the main question for decision being the non-compliance of a provision of the Act which is a ground for an election petition in Rule 12 framed under the Act, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not have been entertained for this purpose. ( 26. ) IN Ashok Kumar Jain vs. Neetu Kathoria 2004 (12)SCC 73, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the election held under Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972. This Court observed that section 66-A of the said Act provided that an election under the Act could be challenged only by presenting an election petition and except in some exceptional extraordinary circumstances normally remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the election by filing a writ petition would not be available. ( 27. ) UMESH Shivappa Ambi vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa 1998 (4) SCC 529 is a case relating to election of President, Vice-President and Chairman, etc. , under the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, wherein the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution set aside the order by which the nomination of the first respondent therein was rejected. This Court reversed the judgment of the High Court with the following observation :-"once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate has to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and the High Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under article 226. The High Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. " ( 28. ) SIMILAR view has been taken in Harnek Singh vs. Charanjit Singh 2005 (8) SCC 383 which is a case relating to election of Chairman of Gram Panchayat and the judgment of the high Court by which the order of the Returning Officer was set aside in a writ petition was reversed. ( 29. ) THUS, in view of the aforesaid analysis the writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioners nomination paper can not be entertained. ( 29. ) THUS, in view of the aforesaid analysis the writ petition which has been filed by the petitioner against the order of the Returning Officer rejecting the petitioners nomination paper can not be entertained. Against such an order of rejection, the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the election of the returned candidate in an election petition raising the grounds available under section 100 of the Representation of People Act 1951. ( 30. ) THE other grounds, which have been raised by the petitioner on merit need not be examined at this stage since it has been held that remedy of writ petition is not available to the petitioner and these grounds will be available to the petitioner if he prefers to file election petition at the appropriate stage: ( 31. ) IN view of the aforesaid, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the order rejecting his nomination is dismissed. Petition dismissed.