JUDGMENT : G.R. Swaminathan, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The Writ petitioner is a practicing Lawyer. He wanted to contest in the bye-election for Ottapidaram reserved Constituency that is to be held on 19.05.2019. The petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that he failed to enclose the extract of electoral roll and the original Community Certificate before the scrutiny time i.e., 11.00 a.m. on 30.04.2019. The Returning officer, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 30.04.2019 rejecting the Writ petitioner's nomination. The said rejection order is under challenge in this Writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Writ petitioner reiterated all the grounds set out in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ petition. His principal contention is that the Writ petitioner's name is very much found in the electoral roll and that he belongs to S.C. Community. Unfortunately, there was a minor delay in submitting these two documents. The learned counsel seriously faulted the conduct of the Returning officer in hastily rejecting his nomination. He wanted this Court to interfere in the matter. Since it may take time to decide the matter, he wanted this Court to grant an interim order restraining the holding of the election on the notified day. In the alternative, he prayed for an interim direction for directing the Returning officer to accept his nomination. 4. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Article 329 of the Constitution of India contains a blanket bar against entertaining such Writ petitions. Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India reads as under:- “329. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters – Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, (a) ... (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.” 5. This constitutional provision was interpreted by the Six Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. (39) 1952 SC 64(N.P.Ponnuswami V. Returning Officer, Namakkal). This constitutional provision was interpreted by the Six Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. (39) 1952 SC 64(N.P.Ponnuswami V. Returning Officer, Namakkal). In the said case also, the nomination of the appellant therein was rejected by the Returning officer. The aggrieved individual filed a Writ petition before the Madras High Court. The Madras High Court dismissed the Writ petition as not maintainable by citing the aforesaid constitutional bar. The decision of the Madras High Court was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is a leading decision and it holds the field even as on date. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “[16] The conclusions which I have arrived as may be summed up briefly as follows: (1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the “election;” and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the “election” and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress.” 6. The said decision was followed by subsequent five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 (Mohinder Singh Gill V. Chief Election Commissioner). In yet another decision reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 (Manda Jaganath V. K.S.Rathnam), the Hon'ble Supreme Court respectfully following the aforesaid decisions reversed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, accepting the challenge to the decision of the Returning officer. 7. In yet another decision reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 (Manda Jaganath V. K.S.Rathnam), the Hon'ble Supreme Court respectfully following the aforesaid decisions reversed the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, accepting the challenge to the decision of the Returning officer. 7. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 states that if the High Court is of the opinion that any nomination has been improperly rejected, it shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. Therefore, the Writ petitioner is very much having a remedy. If his nomination has been improperly rejected, his remedy is to go before the election Tribunal which in this case will be the High Court. The petitioner will have to necessarily wait for the conclusion of the election process and thereafter, he can challenge the same. Therefore, this Writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The Writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. No costs. We make it clear that we have not pronounced anything on the merits of the matter. It is for the petitioner to canvass all his contentions in the election petition, after the election process is over. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.