Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040019822025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/563/2025 Nabam Pada Son of Shri Nabam Sania, resident of Village Upper Gai, PO and PS Sagalee, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Chief Secretary and 3 Ors Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 791111 2:The State Election Commission Age: 0 Occupation : Arunachal Pradesh represented through the State Election Commissioner Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Returning Officer Age: 0 Occupation : VII Sagalee Zilla Parishad Constituency PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Smti Nabam Manju Age: 0 Occupation : Wife of Shri Nabam Jivon resident of Village Upper Gai PO and PS Sagalee Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, Tam Abo,Ebom Basar,G.C Taba,Apra Linggi Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), S/C State Election Commission,Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 05-12-2025 Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission and Mr. S. Tapin, learned senior Government Advocate for the respondent No.1. 2. On 03.12.2025, the Court passed the following orders: “Heard Mr. R. Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that by filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents concerned to allow him to contest in the Panchayat Election, 2025 from 7/11/2-Upper Gai Gram Panchayat Constituency, which is a General Seat for the post of Gram Panchayat Member under the 15th Sagalee Assembly Constituency, District-Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No.73, Part No.11 of the Electoral Roll, 2025 for the said constituency and was contesting as an official Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate. The petitioner filed his nomination paper on 24.11.2025 before the Returning Officer (respondent No.3) with the required documents including a No Due Certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Power Department, Sagalee. Although the petitioner cleared all his electricity dues on 11.11.2025 by paying Rs. 91,407.72/- pursuant to which No Due Page No.# 3/5 Certificate was issued on the same day, but the receipt for such payment was dated 26.11.2025. According to the petitioner, when the nomination papers were considered on 26.11.2025, his candidature/nomination papers was rejected on the ground of the payment receipt of electricity dues, which shows the dues on 26.11.2025. According to the petitioner, while such may be the ground for rejection, but the respondent No.3 has not given any statements with reasons for such rejection as mandated under the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 2001 (in short Rules of 2001), more particularly Rule-12(4) and Rule-12(6) of the said Rules. Since the election is due to be conducted on 15.12.2025, the petitioner having no other alternative filed representations before the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 27.11.2025. Since the same has not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. At the stage, Ms. N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel, State Election Commission and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submit that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that Section 122 of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1997 (in short Act of 1997) clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Courts to entertain any petition on election matters pertaining to the Gram Panchayat and Zila Parishad. Any person aggrieved or having a dispute on election is required to prefer an Election Petition before the Election Tribunal constituted by the State Government in terms of Section 123(3) of the same Act. Further Rule 69 of the Rules of 2001 provides that an Election Petition has to be filed before the Election Tribunal within 30 days from the date of declaration of the election results. The learned counsel further submits that under the circumstances, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Page No.# 4/5 The learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission further submits that the State Election Commission has in fact already written to the State Government on 31.10.2025 for constitution of the Tribunal with a reminder on 01.12.2025. Such being the position, the petitioner may approach the Election Tribunal. Considering the above submissions, let the matter be listed again on 05.12.2025. Ms. N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel, State Election Commission shall obtain instructions with regard to the status of the constitution of the Election Tribunal by then.” 3. Today, Ms N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that as per the instructions received by her, the Election Tribunal has not been constituted till date. And the State Election Commission has sent reminders to the State Government for constitution for the same to deal with grievances of the aggrieved persons relating to ensuing Panchayat and Municipal Elections of 2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has tried to impress upon Court by citing the decision rendered by the Karnataka High Court in L. Ramakrishnappa Versus Presiding Officer and Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, reported in 1991, 0 Supreme (Kar) 485, to contend that in appropriate cases, the High Court has entertained grievances pertaining to the elections. However, from the said judgment itself, that the court was also well aware of the fact that if there is a disputed question of fact involved, it would not be possible for a writ court to adjudicate the case by exercising the Page No.# 5/5 powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Ms N. Anju, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission has also relied upon the full Court decision of the Bombay High Court rendered in Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade and Others Versus The State Election Commission and Others, reported in 2021, 0 Supreme (Bombay) 204, and she submitted that Article 243- O(b) of the Constitution of India provides for a part for entertaining the writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India against an order passed by the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper and such provision would be attracted whenever a writ petition is presented before the court for its consideration. 6. Considering the above position in law, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition having regard to the grievance projected cannot be entertained by this Court. It would, however, be open for the petitioner to approach the Election Tribunal as and when constituted with his grievance. 7. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant