Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040020452025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/585/2025 Smti Gichik Yasa @ Gichik Yassap Wife of Late Gichik Tabe, resident of Village Roing, PO and PS Tali, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 5 Ors represented by the Commissioner/ Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:The State Election Commission Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Commissioner C Sector Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The District Election Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 2/6 5:The Returning Officer Age: 0 Occupation : 8 Tali West Zilla Parishad Constituency Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Nabam Tara Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Nabam Tanlang resident of Village Roing PO and PS Tali Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Teto Taba, Punung Borang,Nimcha Hondique,Nang walika Jenow,Vijay Duku Raji,C Ering,Begi Taba Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 12-12-2025 Heard Mr. T. Taba, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the rejection of her nomination for the post of Gram Panchayat Member of 8/77/2-Roing-II Constituency under 8-Tali West Zila Parishad Constituency in the district of Kra Daadi, Arunachal Pradesh from the People’s Party of Arunachal (PPA). He submits that the petitioner, upon perusing the list of validly nominated candidates published by the respondent No. 5 on 26.11.2025, was surprised to find her name not amongst the enlisted nominees. Upon making an enquiry, she has come to learn that her nomination has been rejected due to mismatch of her name in her electoral roll submitted by her. Although the name of the petitioner is Gichik Yasa, the same has been reflected Page No.# 3/6 as Gichik Yassap. The learned counsel submits that Chapter-IV Rule-3 of the Panchayat Election Handbook for Returning Officer, 2025 provides that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the grounds of any defect which is not of substantial nature. Further, referring to the Second Clause of Rule-2 of Chapter-IV of the Handbook, the learned counsel submits that the grounds for rejection of nomination papers have been specifically provided therein and therefore, without specifying any particular reason, the Returning Officer could not have rejected the name of the petitioner from the list of validly nominated candidates published on 26.11.2025. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the Returning Officer should be directed to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner so that the petitioner can participate in the election process. The learned counsel further submits that the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can interfere with the decision of the Returning Officer on grounds of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power. In support of this submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, (2000) 8 SCC 216 and Lila Sarma and Others vs. State of Assam and Others 2019 (1) GLT 302. 2. Ms. N. Anju, learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that there is a remedy provided for such kind of grievance by filing of election petition, which is to be adjudicated by the Election Tribunal constituted by the State Government in terms of Section 123(3) of the Arunachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1997, (Act of 1997). She submits that Section 122 of the same Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of Courts and likewise, Article 243 O(b) of the Constitution of India, also specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Court Page No.# 4/6 against an order against an order passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting the nomination paper. She also submits that she too relies upon the case of Lila Sarma and Others (supra), wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court, after going through various decisions of the Apex Court, declined to entertain the writ petitions. Referring to the said judgment, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners therein had also approached the High Court on the grounds of rejection of their nomination papers, for one reason or the other, by the Returning Officer. On facts, she submits that the Returning Officer either found the nomination papers to be incomplete for want of Bakijai certificate, or the nominee having held the office of profit, or the candidate having failed to choose any particular symbol of an independent candidate. Similarly in the instant case, although it may so appear that it is the mismatch of the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll submitted by her, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but it could very well be for other reasons which have been found to be substantial in nature by the Returning Officer. She submits that since polling is due on 15.12.2025, there is, otherwise, no time at this stage even to obtain instructions, even if the same was required to be obtained. She submits that this Court also had taken up a similar issue on 05.12.2025, i.e. WP(C)563(AP)/2025, (Nabam Pada vs. the Chief Secretary and Three Others) and upon considering the grievance of the petitioner, which is similar to the present one, this Court had declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition at the in motion stage itself. She therefore submits that a similar order may be passed in the present case as well, in view of the specific bar for entertaining such kind of grievance by the Courts. 3. Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, also adopts the arguments made by learned Standing counsel for the State Election Commission Page No.# 5/6 and submits that not only there appears to be discrepancy in the name of the petitioner, but also in the name of her parents as can be seen from the Schedule Tribe Certificate and Birth Certificate annexed to the writ petition. Further, there is also some discrepancy in the date of birth as well. He also submits that whatever the reason may have been, since there is a bar for entertainment of a case of such nature by Courts, the instant writ petition may not be entertained by this Court and the petitioner may be relegated to the remedy available in accordance with law. 4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available including the authorities relied upon, this Court finds that there is no scope for this Court to entertain this writ petition in view of the specific bar provide under Section 122 of the Act of 1997 read with Section 243 O (b) of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others (supra) also held that the Courts cannot interrupt, obstruct or protect the election proceedings but it would be open for judicial review on grounds of malafide or arbitrary exercise of power. Now, in the instant case, whether the action of the Returning Officer can be termed as a malafide or arbitrary exercise of power is a question which cannot be determined on the basis of the materials available before this Court. Moreover, as already observed, elections are to be held on 15.12.2025 and whereas the writ petition has been filed only on 10.12.2025 and listed on 11.12.2025. Therefore, this Court finds that there is no scope even for requiring the respondent counsels to seek instructions in the matter. Accordingly, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Election Tribunal as and when the same is constituted with the grievances projected by her. Page No.# 6/6 5. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant