Jagdish Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9th January, 2020, whereby nomination of the petitioner for

contesting the election on the post of Sarpanch has been rejected.

The petitioner has also prayed to declare him eligible for contesting the election of Panch of Ward No.13 of Village Panchayat Sheeshyoo, District

Sikar by accepting his nomination form.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has not taken into account the proviso (iv) of Section 19 of the Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (for short ""the Act of 1994""), as only one child was borne after 27 th November, 1995 and all the four children of the

petitioner were borne prior to the cut off date, as prescribed in the said section.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was fully qualified to contest the election and in view of the illegality committed by the respondents, this

Court needs to interfere.

Learned counsel for the respondents Ms.Sheetal Mirdha, AAG submitted that against the rejection of nomination of the petitioner, the writ petition is

not remedy and the petitioner has to avail the appropriate remedy of filing the election petition as per Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj

(Election) Rules, 1994 (for short ""the Rules of 1994"").

Learned counsel further submitted that the notification for election has already been issued, as nomination forms have been scrutinized and as such,

this Court may not like to interfere at this stage.

Learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of NP Ponnuswami Vs. Returning

Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors. reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of

Subhash Chand Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) WLC (Raj.) 48.

On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that jurisdiction of the High Court is excluded to interfere in the writ

petition against the process of election.

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai

Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.4056/2006 decided on 11th September, 2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on the judgment of Madars High Court in the case of K.Munusamy Vs. The State Election

Commissioner & Ors. in WP No.3147/2007 decided on 26th July, 2007.

On the strength of said judgments, learned counsel submitted that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to the High

Court to set aside the unreasonable and irrational decision taken by the administrative authorities.

Learned counsel submitted that if there is misuse of power or there is procedural impropriety, the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India cannot be excluded.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

This Court finds that if the petitioner had filled his nomination form and the same has been rejected by order dated 9th January, 2020, there is remedy

provided of filing the election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 by a candidate against rejection of nomination on any of the grounds.

This Court further finds that once the election process has set in motion, this Court will not be required to exercise its jurisdiction for staying the entire

process of election.

The Apex Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency & Ors.(supra) has clearly laid down the law that

disputes relating to improper rejection of nomination papers should not be looked into by the High Court exercising power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The Coordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Subhash Chand Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) has taken a

similar view.

As far as reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel & Ors. (supra) is

concerned, this Court finds that the Supreme Court was considering the judgment passed by the High Court, wherein election of a candidate was set

aside. The issue with regard to rejection of nomination paper and having statutory alternative remedy was not before the Apex Court.

The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of K.Munusamy Vs. The State Election Commissioner & Ors. (supra),

Madras High Court has also not considered the issue of exclusion of jurisdiction of High Court in rejection of nomination paper and further, the issue

of election process once set in motion was not to be interfered by the High Court, was also not considered.

Accordingly, the writ petition has no force, hence, it is dismissed.