1 2025:CGHC:8840 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1039 of 2025 1 - Smt Seema Churendra W/o Shri Mahesh Kumar Churendra Aged About 28 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Kandarka Ward No. 02 Tahsil Ahiwara Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through Its Secretary Nirvachan Bhawan Sector 19 Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development Mahanadi Bhawan Naya Raipur Atal Nagar District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - The Collector Durg District - Durg (C.G.) RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.21 10:34:35 +0530 2 4 - Chief Executive OfÏcer Zila Panchayat Durg District - Durg (C.G.) 5 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Dhamdha Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) 6 - Returning OfÏcer Cum Tahsildar Tahsil Ahiwara Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) 7 - Assistant Returning OfÏcer Cum Chief Executive OfÏcer Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) 8 - Uma (Uma Yadav) W/o Chetan Yadav Aged About 39 Years R/o Gram Panchayat Kandarka Ward No. 02 Tahsil Ahiwara Janpad Panchayat Dhamdha District - Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 20.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 4/2/2025, by which the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of nomination form of the respondent No.8 has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner 3 raised an objection regarding the candidature of the respondent no. 8 on the ground that she has not submitted the caste certifcate along with her nomination form, however, the authorities rejected the said objection of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 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 rejected the objection of the petitioner. The order impugned 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.8. Acceptance of nomination paper of the respondent No.8 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 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.8 is in the process of election. 6. It is the well settled law that whether the returning OfÏcer is justified in passing the impugned order, 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). 4 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 ofÏcer 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. The petitioner would place reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Dashmi Bai Belsariya v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, passed in WA 5 No. 206/2020 decided on 23/02/2021. The said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the said case, the appellant (writ petitioner) was questioning the order passed by the Revisional Authority while exercising the power under Rule 36 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995, whereas in the case in hand, the objection filed by the petitioner with regard to the social status of the respondent No.8 has been rejected and the nomination form filed by the respondent no.8 has been accepted. 10. Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of the 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 OfÏcer, 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. 11. 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 Rahul