ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the Returning Officer dated 20th April, 2019 has been assailed by which the nomination made by the petitioner to contest the election as a candidate of 'All India Trinamool Congress' has been rejected. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the date of notification of the 5th Phase of 17th Parliamentary Election of Ranchi was notified on 09.04.2019 and the date of nomination was fixed from 10.04.2019 to 18.04.2019, the timing of filing the nomination was from 11:00 a.m. to 03:00 p.m. The petitioner was issued the symbol of 'All India Trinamool Congress' for Ranchi Parliamentary Constituency 08 on 17.04.2019 at 10:00 p.m. as would be evident from Form A and B (Annexure-A). The petitioner has purchased nomination paper on 18.04.2019 and after duly filled it and prepared it for filing it on 18.04.2019, he reached the office of Returning Officer for filing his nomination on 18.04.2019 at 02:10 p.m. along with his Proposer Shri Snehanshu Sah and a learned lawyer, Shri Yadav, two supporters namely, Shri Dayanand Singh and Shri Bilesh Singh and the party President, Shri Ajay Singh. The petitioner while was entering in Room No.206, Ranchi Collectorate, Ranchi i.e., office of the Returning Officer for filing his nomination at 02:58 i.e., after he was issued the slip though he was allowed to enter the room but his Proposer was stopped from entering the Room No.206 and the petitioner was told that he should go inside and his Proposer will be sent later, since, the Form A and Form B were with his Proposer but as because he was not being allowed to enter in the Room, the Form A and B would not have been placed before the Returning Officer and in the meanwhile the nomination paper has been returned on the pretext that the time has already crossed 03:00 p.m. and accordingly it was not accepted, therefore, he has been denied to contest the parliamentary election of a National Party like 'All India Trinamool Congress' due to the arbitrary action of the Returning Officer, therefore, the same may be looked into by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof, the decision of not accepting the nomination form may be quashed and he may be allowed to contest the election by accepting the nomination form. 3. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has vehemently opposed the submission, ground and the reason of filing this writ petition mainly on the ground that the writ petition is not maintainable looking to the nature of dispute involved in this case since the election once notified by the President of India, the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be barred in view of the provision of Section 329 (b) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition may be not entertained. He has also argued on merit showing therein that even on merit there is no case of the petitioner since he is with nomination form but without any Form A & B which is the mandatory requirement and therefore, his nomination paper has not been accepted due to time constraint since by that time it has already crossed 03:00 p.m. while he has placed the nomination paper before 03:00 p.m. but due to non-availability of Form A & B with him, his nomination paper has not been accepted and as such the Returning Officer, while taking such decision, has not committed illegality. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their rival submissions, this Court deems it fit and proper to first go into the question of maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to look into the merit of the case if it is found to be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Part XV of the Constitution deals about Elections wherein under the provision of Article 324 the superintendence, direction and control of election to be vested in an Election Commission. Section 329 deals with the provision about the bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters which speaks hereunder as:- “329. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matter.–– [Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution] (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the 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 provision which is relevant for the present is Article 329(b) wherefrom it is evident that 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. In pursuance to the provision as contained under Article 327 whereby and whereunder power has been conferred upon Parliament to make provision with respect to election to the legislature, in pursuance thereto, The Representation of the People Act, 1950 was passed by the Parliament which makes detailed provision in regard to all matter and all stages connected with election to the various legislatures in the country. Part III deals with the notification of General Elections, Part IV provides for administrative machinery for the conduct of elections, Part V makes provisions for the actual conduct of Elections and deals with such matters as presentation of nomination papers, requirements of a valid nomination, scrutiny of nominations, etc., and procedure for polling and counting of votes, Part VI deals with disputes regarding elections and provides for the manner of presentation of election petitions, the constitution of election Tribunals and the trial of election petitions, as such, the Act is a self contained enactment so far as elections are concerned wherein certain provisions has been made which needs to be discussed here in that are Section 80, 100, 105 and 170, and the provisions of Chapter II of Part IV dealing with Form of Election Petitions their contents and reliefs which may be sought in them. Section 80 which is similar in language as the content of the Article 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, provides for the grounds on which an election may be called in question one of which is improper rejection of a nomination paper. Section 105 says that “every order of the Tribunal made in 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.” In the light of the aforesaid provision and in view of the provision as contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India read with Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 the definition of Election needs to be appreciated as to what is the exact meaning of Election. 6. 6. The aforesaid issue has been taken into consideration by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist and four others, reported in 1952 SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph 6 while interpreting the meaning of the words “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition” and the point has been decided therein that the action of the Returning Officer in rejecting a nomination paper can be said to be comprehended within the words, “no election shall be called in question.” It has been laid down therein at paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 18 which reads hereunder as:- “7. These arguments papers at first sight to be quite impressive, but in my opinion, there are weightier and basically more important arguments in support of the view taken by the High Court. As we have seen, the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word "election" in Article 329 (b). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. In Sriniwasalu v. Kuppuswami, the learned Judges of the Madras High Courts after examining the question, expressed the opinion that the term "election" may be taken to embrace the whole procedure whereby an "elected member" is returned, whether or not it be found necessary to take a poll. With this view, my brother, Mahajan J. expressed his agreement is Sat Narain v. Hunuman Parshad, and I also find myself in agreement with it. 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. 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 read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article 329 (b). 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 subject is dealt with quite concisely in Halsbury's Laws of England in the following passage under the heading "Commencement of the Election." " "Although the first formal step in every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some purposes to begin at an earlier date. It is a question of fact in each case when an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible for breaches of election law, the test being whether the contest is 'reasonably imminent'. Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of election can be looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this point of view. Nor, again, does the nomination day afford any criterion. The election will usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as to when 'the conduct of management' an election may be said to begin. Again, the question as to when a particular person commences to be a candidate is a question to be considered in each case." 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. 8. 8. The next important question to be considered is what is meant by the words "no election shall be called in question." A reference to any treatise on elections in England will show that an election proceeding in that country is liable to be assailed on very limited, grounds, one of them being the improper rejection of a nomination paper. The law with which we are concerned is not materially different, and we find that in Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, one of the grounds for declaring an election to be void is the improper rejection of a nomination paper. 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 an other 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. It seems to me that 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 329 (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. 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 Article 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. 10. In think that a brief examination of the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 will show that the construction I have suggested is the correct one. Broadly speaking, before an election machinery can be brought into operation, there are three requisites which require to be attended to, namely, (1) there should be a set of laws and rules making provisions with respect to all matters relating to, or in connection with, elections, and it should be decided as to how these laws and rules are to be made; (2) there should be an executive charged with the duty of securing the due conduct of elections; and (3) there should be a judicial tribunal to deal with disputes arising out of or in connection with elections. Articles 327 and 328 deal with the first of these requisites, Article 324 with the second and Article 329 with the third requisite. The other two articles in Part XV, viz., Articles 325 and 326 deal with two matters of principle to which the Constitution framers have attached much importance. They are: (1) prohibition against discrimination in the preparation of, or eligibility for inclusion in, the electoral rolls, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any of them; and (2) adult suffrage. Part XV of the Constitution is really a code in itself providing the entire groundwork for enacting appropriate laws and setting up suitable machinery for the conduct of elections. 11. Part XV of the Constitution is really a code in itself providing the entire groundwork for enacting appropriate laws and setting up suitable machinery for the conduct of elections. 11. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was passed by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution, makes detailed provisions in regard to all matters and all stages connected with elections to the various legislatures in this country. That Act is divided into 11 parts, and it is interesting to see the wide variety of subjects they deal with. Part II deals with the qualifications and disqualifications for membership," Part III deals with. Part II deals with the notification of General Elections, part IV provides for the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections, and Part V makes provisions for the actual conduct of elections and deals with such matters as presentation of nomination papers, requirements of a valid nomination, scrutiny of nominations, etc., and procedure for polling and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputes regarding elections and provides for the manner of presentation of election petitions, the constitution of election tribunals and the trial of election petitions. Part VII outlines the various corrupt and illegal practices which may affect the elections, and electoral offences. 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 Sections 80, 100, 105 and 170, and the provisions of Chapter 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 Article 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." These are the main provisions regarding election matters being judicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is no provision anywhere to the effect that anything connected with elections can be questioned at an intermediate stage. 12. It is now well-recognized 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. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford in the following passage : "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute. One is, where there was a liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different from the remedy which existed at common law; there, unless the statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication exclude the common law remedy, the party suing has his election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but provides no particular form of remedy; there, the party can only proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, vis., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it.... The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." 14. It was argued that since the Representation of the People Act was enacted subject to the provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." 14. It was argued that since the Representation of the People Act was enacted subject to the provisions of the Constitution, it cannot bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. This argument however, is completely shut out by reading the Act along with Article 329 (b). It will be noticed that the language used in that article and in Section 80 of the Act is almost identical, with this difference only that the article is preceded by the words "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution." I think that those words are quite apt to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with any matter which may arise while the elections are in progress. 18. The conclusions which it have arrived at 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) It conformity with this principle, the scheme 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.”” It is thus evident that law has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court holding therein that once the election has been notified the entire process since the date of its notification by the President of India till its conclusion would come under the definition of the word Election and therefore, rejection of nomination will come under the definition of Election and hence, in view of the specific bar laid down under the provision of Article 329(b), the jurisdiction of writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be barred in view of the provision made under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by filing an Election petition before appropriate forum and if the provision as contained in Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 would be considered the wording therein is similar to that of the wording of Article 329(b), therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the impact of interference of any Court of law in course of the process of election, the entire democratic system will suffer hence has been pleased to lay down that the writ petition will not lie. 7. The judgment rendered in the case of N. P. Ponnuswami (supra) still holds the filed, therefore, this Court by putting reliance upon the aforesaid judgment as also in the judgment rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 wherein at paragraph 126 it has been laid down that the writ application is barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:- “126. vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC 405 wherein at paragraph 126 it has been laid down that the writ application is barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:- “126. The above being the legal position, Article 329(b) rules out the maintainability of the writ application. Article 329(b) provides that “notwithstanding anything in this Constitution . . . no election to either House of Parliament . . . 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”. It is undisputed that an election can be challenged only under the provisions of the Act. Indeed Section 80 of the Act provides that “no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of” Part VI of the Act. We find that all the substantial reliefs which the appellants seek in the writ application, including the declaration of the election to be void and the declaration of appellant 1 to be duly elected, can be claimed in the election petition. It will be within the power of the High Court, as the election Court, to give all appropriate reliefs to do complete justice between the parties. In doing so it will be open to the High Court to pass any ancillary or consequential order to enable it to grant the necessary relief provided under the Act. The writ application is therefore barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution and the High Court rightly dismissed it on that ground.” 8. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan & Anr., reported in 1999 (4) SCC 526 wherein it has been laid down by following the judgment in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami (supra) holding at paragraph 27 thereof that the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is barred challenging the election of the returned candidate. 9. 9. In view of the specific bar as stipulated under the provision of Article 329 (b) but the bar of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India will not come into play when the case fall under Articles 199 and 193 of the Constitution of India and the whole election process is over. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and Ors., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216 but therein also the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to rely upon the provision of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India by laying down therein the views taken by the Constitution Bench at paragraph 32 thereof which reads as under:- “32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already seen and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material.” 11. In view of the judicial pronouncement as quoted hereinabove and considering its binding effect as also considering the provision of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and looking to the factual aspect wherein the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected which was included in the process of election and therefore it will come under the purview of the election as has been dealt with and decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its constitutional Bench judgment rendered in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami(supra)and therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, accordingly stands dismissed. 12. This Court, since, is holding the writ petition as not maintainable for the reason aforesaid, therefore, is not entering into the merit of the judgment involved in this case as has been agitated by the learned counsel for the respective parties, leaving it open for the petitioner to raise the issue, if he so wishes, before the competent forum at appropriate stage.