AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the endorsement dated 30.6.2016 issued by the 3rd respondent vide Annexure-A to the petition, whereby the nomination filed by the petitioner for the election to the Kumata marketing committee is rejected.
It transpires that the 2nd respondent issued notification dated 07.12.2016 to constitute new marketing committee to the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Kumata. As per the notification, calendar of events was published on 7.12.2016. The petitioner filed his nomination under Form-15 before the 3rd respondent on 26/12/2016. On scrutiny of the said nomination, respondent No.3 rejected the same on 30.12.2016. This endorsement issued by respondent No.3-Election Commissioner is under challenge in this writ petition.
Section 20 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, (''Act'' for short) contemplates that at any time within fifteen days from the date of publication under Section 27 of the result of an election, any candidate who stood for election or any person qualified to vote at that election may challenge the election by presenting an election petition by making the candidates at the election parties to the petition, together with a deposit of two hundred rupees as security for costs in the prescribed manner, to the Munsiff within whose territorial jurisdiction the market yard of the market area concerned is situated for the determination of the validity of the election.
Section 21 of the Act provides grounds for declaring election to be void. Clause (c) of Section 21 of the Act specifies that any nomination improperly rejected would be a valid ground for declaring election to be void under Section 20 of the Act.
At this juncture, it is beneficial to refer to the Judgment of the constitution Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of N.P.PONNUSWAMI -v- RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 wherein it is held that the word "election" is used to embrace the whole proceedure of election and is not confined to final result thereof. Rejection or acceptance of nomination papers is included in the term. 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. Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper cannot be called in question under Article 226 of the Constitution. This judgement is followed by the courts in catena of judgments.
Thus, it is well settled legal position that once the election process is set in motion by issuing calendar of events, there is a bar to invoke the extraordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the statute provides an alternative and efficacious remedy. As aforesaid Sections 20 and 21 of the Act clearly provides the efficacious remedy to challenge the election based on improper rejection of the nomination papers. In such circumstances, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Thus, the writ petition is not maintainable.
The writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available under the statute.