Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 598 (MP)

Shanti v. Principal Secretary the State of M. P.

2012-06-22

R.S.JHA

body2012
JUDGMENT : R.S. Jha , J.;- Heard Shri P.N. Dubey ,learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interimrelief. Thepetitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 15-6-2012 passed by respondent No. 4rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers for contesting the election forthe post of President of Municipal Council, Nainpur . Itis submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.4 has rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner on the behest of hisrivals who are politically dominant and has done so with a mala fide intention. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 4 has acceptedidentical nomination papers filed by other contesting candidates but withdeliberate intention to victimize and subject the petitioner to discriminationhas rejected the petitioner's nomination papers and in such circumstances inview of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ElectionCommission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000)8 SCC 216 the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's nomination papers beset aside and the respondents be directed to accept her nomination papers andshe be permitted to contest the election which is going to be held on 7th ofJuly, 2012. Whenconfronted with the Bar to entertain such election disputes as enshrined inArticle 243(z-g) of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner submits that the order passed by the respondent No. 4 beingarbitrary and mala fide and as it amounts tothwarting the process of free and fair election, is totally and whollyunsustainable in law and therefore falls within the exceptions tononinterference in election process which has been enumerated and pointed out bythe Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). Ihave heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused therecord. Thepresent case is one where the petitioner is assailing the rejection of hisnomination papers which is one of the grounds enumerated in the statutoryprovisions to assail the election by a returned candidate by filing an electionpetition under 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Ihave heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused therecord. Thepresent case is one where the petitioner is assailing the rejection of hisnomination papers which is one of the grounds enumerated in the statutoryprovisions to assail the election by a returned candidate by filing an electionpetition under 20 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Inthe case of N.P. Ponnuswami v. The StateReturning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal , AIR 1952 SC 64 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 the ConstitutionBenches of the Supreme Court have categorically held that as the law providesfor provisions which confer special jurisdiction on Election Tribunals toassail the election of a returned candidate on specific grounds enumeratedtherein after the completion of the election all other remedies, including theremedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are excluded and,therefore, in such cases the Court should not interfere under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India at the stage of rejection of the nomination papersand leave the party to assail the election in accordance with the procedureprescribed by law. Followingthe aforesaid decisions of the Constitution Benches, the Supreme Court whiletaking into consideration the provisions of Article 243-ZG of the Constitutionof India, has held that the High Court should not entertain the writ petitionsin election matters, specifically in relation to election disputes which arerequired to be decided in the election petitions to be filed and decided inaccordance with the procedure prescribed by law, more so, as the right tocontest 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) 7SCC 492. Theexceptions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner which relateto breach of law or arbitrary or mala fide exerciseof powers under the general conduct of elections relate to directions andpowers by the Election Commission in those limited cases where the directionsmay result in thwarting the process of free and fair election. The exceptionsdo not relate to exercise of powers by the Returning Officers while rejectingnomination papers. The exceptionsdo not relate to exercise of powers by the Returning Officers while rejectingnomination 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 nominationpapers in which the Supreme Court relegated the petitioners therein to availthe remedy available to them under the statutory provisions and in accordancewith the procedure prescribed by law. Inthe circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orderat this Stage. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinionon the merits of the case and, therefore, if so advised, the petitioner wouldbe at liberty to take up proceedings to assail the election by taking up allpossible issues before the Election Tribunal. With the aforesaid observations/libertythe petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed.