N. Dharmalingam vs The Returning Officer and The District Collector

M.Y. Eqbal, C.J. and T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order

dated 28th March, 2011, passed by the 1st Respondent, whereby his nomination paper pertaining to No. 80 Kallakurichi (SC) Assembly

Constituency has been rejected.

The translated copy of the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent is quoted herein below:

IMPUGNED ORDER The proceedings of the Returning Officer, No. 80 Kallakurichi, SC Assembly Constituency and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Kallakurichi.

Present: A.N. Nagabhushana Raju

Na. Ka. No. A3/989/2011 28/03/2011

Subject: Election 2011 - Assembly Election - 80 Kallakurichi, SC Assembly Constituency - 28/03/2011 - scrutinize the nomination papers - the

nomination of N. Dharmalingam had been rejected - Order.

Ref: 1. The rules laid down by Election Commission of India.

Nomination No. 15 dated 26.03.2011

Order: That on 26.03.2011, in serial No. 15 one N. Dharmalingam, son of Nondi, Marur, Kadambur Village, Shankarapuram Taluk, had filed his

nomination for 80, Kallakurichi SC Assembly Constituency and on 28.03.2011 when the same had been scrutinized, the details of the proposals

like part No. and continuation No. , when compared to the 2011 voter''s list, the same had not been tallied and as a result his nomination is hereby

rejected.

Returning Office No. 80

Kallakurichi, SC, Assembly Constituency

and Revenue Divisional Officer.

The Petitioner''s case is that after the nomination paper was filed by him, the1st Respondent issued a communication to the Petitioner to appear

before the 1stRespondent on 30th March, 2011. While submitting the nomination paper, the Petitioner enclosed the list of proposes, namely, 10 of

them along with their voter list of 80 Kallakurichi SC Assembly constituency containing their names and photographs pertaining to the voter list of

the year 2008. On a scrutiny of the papers, the Returning Officer found that the list of proposes, i.e., namely 10 of them of whom the voter list had

been filed, pertaining to the year 2008, did not find place in the voter list of 2011 kept by the 1st Respondent. Consequently, the nomination was

rejected, as on scrutiny the details of proposes like Part Number and Continuation Number when compared to 2011 voter list did not tally.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the impugned order rejecting the nomination of the Petitioner is illegal and wholly without

jurisdiction. According to the learned Counsel, the voter list for the year 2008 alone was available to the public and the voter list of the year 2011

had not been circulated to anyone. As a result, the rejection is highly arbitrary.

The question that arises for consideration is whether this Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain the writ petition

and decide the legality of the impugned order.

Before proceeding further, we would like to refer to Article 329 of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:

Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters.- [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.

Clause (b) of Article 329 is very clear on this point. It is manifest that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House

of the Legislature of State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented before the authority empowered under the law.

Section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1950, lays down the ground for declaring the election to be void. One of the grounds for

declaring election to be void is the rejection of the nomination improperly.

In our opinion, the instant case is squarely covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami

Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, .

After giving our anxious consideration, we are of the definite opinion that the question regarding the improper rejection of nomination cannot be

gone into by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Hence, no relief can be granted and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also

dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.