1 2025:CGHC:9335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1062 of 2025 1 Digvijay Singh Sahu S/o Shri Tejram Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Village- Supela, Police Station And Tahsil Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 2 The Election Commission Of Chhattisgarh Through- Chief Election Officer, Sector-19, Atal Nagar- Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 The Collector/district Election Officer (Panchayat) District Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue)/returning Officer (Panchayat) Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 The Tahsildar/ Returning Officer (Panchayat) Tahsil- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 The Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat)/ Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat- Kurud, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.25 10:30:40 +0530 2 7 Chetan Lal Dewangan S/o Shri Tetkuram Dewangan Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Supela, Police Station And Tahsil Bhakhara, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Roop Ram NaikAdvocate. For Respondents/ state : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. A.G. For Respondents No. 2 & 6 : Shri Akash Verma on behalf of Shri R.S. Marhas,Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 24.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to reject the nomination form submitted by respondent No. 7. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner raised an objection regarding the candidature of the respondent no. 7 on the ground that he has encroached the government land. He would further submit that despite submission of relevant documents and sufficient materials before the authorities they have not considered the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. He would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter the authorities have rightly accepted the nomination form of respondent No.7. The alleged impugned action is just and proper and warranting no interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. The above mentioned facts are not in dispute, the only issue is acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No.7. Acceptance of nomination paper of the respondent No.7 on whatsoever ground, it is during the process of election and this Court cannot entertain the petition amidst the election. In fact, the word ‘election’ is used to embrace the whole procedure of election and is not 3 confined to the final result thereof- Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is included in the term. Thus, acceptance of nomination form of respondent No.7 is in the process of election. 6. It is the well settled law that whether the returning Officer is justified in accepting the nomination form of respondent No. 7, is not a matter for the Court to decide in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. (See-Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Others reported in 2004 7 SCC 492). 7. It is noteworthy to mention here that bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters has been provided under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which reads thus : 243-O. 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 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. 8. Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1995’) speaks about grounds for declaring election to be void. Rule 21(1)(c) provides that : 21. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion- xxx xxx xxx (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or From the above provision, it is apparent that the Rules, 1995 provide a remedy to question the improper rejection of nomination form. 9. Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of the 4 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr Vs The Chief Election Commissioner [1978 (1) SCC 405] and N.P. Ponnuswami V. Returning Officer, Nanmakkal Constituency & Ors [AIR 1952 SC 64], Manda Jaganath (supra), and also considering Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Rule 21(1)(c) of the Rules, 1995, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. 10.As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Jyoti