Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4563-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 751 of 2025 Petitioner :- Piyare Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Ministry Of Law And Justice Deptt. Of Legal Affairs And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Mani Tripathi,Arvind Kumar Pathak,P.R.S. Bajpai,Rang Nath Misra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anupriya Srivastava,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard Sri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 5 and learned Standing counsel for the State. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, a candidate in the ensuing elections to the Milkipur Assembly seat has challenged the rejection of his nomination vide order of the Returning OfÏcer dated 18.01.2025. The rejection is on the ground that several columns in the nomination form have been left blank. The petitioner says that they have not been left blank as would be evident on bare reading of it, whereas counsel for the Election Commission says that the forms were incorrectly filled and were not filled in accordance with the note appended to relevant columns. He has invited our attention to the columns requiring PAN nos. to be given or in its absence, it was to be mentioned- 'ककोई स्थथाययी खथातथा ससंख्यथा (पपेन ) आवसंटटित नहीሻ हहआ हह'। Instead of mentioning the same, the petitioner has mentioned 'शशून्य'। There are other discrepancies in the nomination form. Moreover, he has invited our attention to a judgment of three Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ram Phal Kundu vs. Kamal Sharma [(2004) 2 SCC 759], wherein it has been inter alia held as under:- "........That apart, it has been held by a catena of decisions of this Court that once the nomination paper of a candidate is rejected, the Act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage." For the aforesaid reason, he says that the petition is not maintainable. Counsel for the petitioner on the other hand invites our attention to a recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union Territory of Laddakh and Ors. vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Anr. [(2023) SCC Online SC 1205] to contend their writ petition that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition at this stage of the elections. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, considering the fact that improper rejection of a nomination is a ground for challenging the elections under Section 100 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 and also taking into consideration the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India and also fact that the notification for the Election have already been issued and there is a remedy as aforesaid to challenge the same at the appropriate stage by filing election petition and interference at this stage will amount to interference with the process of elections which is prohibited in law and even otherwise in the facts of the case, we do not find it a fit case for exercise of our discretion to interfere at this stage, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid election at the appropriate stage. In view of above, writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Nitesh Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench