JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Sanjay Harkauli, JJ. 1. Heard Shri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The following two averments are important for considering the argument that has been advanced as contained in Paras - 16 & 17 of the writ petition:- "16. That the petitioner acting under the directions of Returning Officer submitted nomination papers to an employee of the Returning Officer and was waiting for his turn. 17. That on 31.01.2017 the petitioner at about 4.15 P.M. requested the Returning Officer to take up his nomination paper as being a sugar patient he was required to got for urinal. The Returning Officer became angry and returned back the nomination paper of the petitioner with an endorsement that the same has been presented at 4.15 P.M. and could not be accepted. The order dated 31.01.2017 passed on nomination paper by the Returning Officer along with copy of duly filed nomination paper submitted before the Returning Officer on 31.01.2017 at 2.45 P.M. is enclosed herewith as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not be entitled to file an election petition and therefore, any bar as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court viz-a-viz Article-329 of the Constitution of India read with Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 will not apply on the facts of the present case as reproduced above, so as to bar the filing of the present writ petition. He, therefore, submits that the return of the documents of nomination will not amount to an improper rejection and consequently, an election petition cannot be filed. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and in such a situation, the present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel for the Election Commission of India, submits that the order which has been passed and is endorsed on the nomination paper of the petitioner amounts to a rejection of his nomination papers and consequently, this would be clearly within the four corners of Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and as such, an election petition would be maintainable. The order which has been passed and endorsed on the nomination paper of the petitioner is reproduced here in under:- ckj&ckj iqdkj vkokt djk;s tkus ds ckn Hkh esjs le{k izLrqr ugha gq, u gh mlus viuk uke funsZ'ku izLrqr gh fd;k ftl dkj.k ls 4.15 p.m. ij budk uke funsZ'ku i= ugha fy;k tk ldrk gSA g0 v0 31-01-2017 lhy Returning Officer, 173, Lucknow East Assembly Constituency 5. A perusal of the said order indicates that the Returning Officer called out the name of the petitioner repeatedly but since the petitioner was not present in person nor did he place the nomination papers therefore the same could not be entertained at 4:15 p.m. 6. Shri Jain submits that the nomination papers had been tendered and without carrying out any scrutiny, the return of the papers would not amount to a rejection, as rejection can be made only after scrutiny. He further submits that such a ground will not be available for filing an election petition. 7. Having perused the said order we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the Election Commission of India is correct as the said contingency will also fall within the scope of Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. In view of the nature of the order passed as extracted here-in-above, what can be said is that the Returning Officer has declined to entertain the nomination papers of the petitioner which may ultimately fall within the definition of improper rejection. Consequently, such a contingency can also be made a subject matter of Election Petition and any interference at this stage would be impermissible keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Ponnuswami v. Union of India [ 1952 SCR 218 ] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [AIR 1978 SC page 851]. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable. The same is rejected.