Ambika Gopalan vs Returning Officer and Others

T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of nomination in Ward No. 2 of Vechoor Grama Panchayat. It is pointed out that the nomination was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had attended the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 29.1.2010 and accepted remuneration and at the same time, for a period of 10 days she had availed the benefit under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not a disqualification going by Section 34 of the Panchayat Raj Act.

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission.

Even though the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bar under Article 243O(b) of the Constitution of India will not prevent this Court from examining the validity of the rejection of nomination, I cannot agree with the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the light of the express bar provided under Article 243O(b). The non obstinate clause therein really bars the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This legal position is settled by various decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court. The issues are covered against the petitioner in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, , Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, , Anugrah Narain Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and State of U.P. and others etc. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others etc., . Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is only to challenge the election after the results are announced, under the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act. Without prejudice to the said remedy, the Writ Petition is dismissed.