1 2025:CGHC:6206 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 721 of 2025 1 - Ajhar Khan S/o Mohd. Mujaffar Khan Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 42 Sahid Abdul Hamid Ward, P.S. And Tahsil- Ambikapur Distt.- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through Secretary Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Election Bhawan Sector 19, North Block- Nawa Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Collector/district Election Officer- Surguja Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 4 - Returing Officer- Nagarpalika (Municipal Corporation) Ambikapur Distt- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Assistant Returning Officer (Nagarpalika) Municipal Corporation- Ambikapur, Distt.- Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.05 17:56:15 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Ritesh Giri, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent/Election Commission : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 04/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a prayer for quashment of the impugned order dated 29/01/2025 Annexure P-1 issued by the respondent No.4, by which, the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of Councilor has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of Councilor of Ward No.42, Sahid Abdul Hamid Ward, Municipal Corporation Ambikapur has been rejected by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 29/01/2025 Annexure P-1, on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the caste certificate of OBC category with the nomination and also without considering the affidavit submitted by the petitioner with the nomination form. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is belongs to Julha caste and the Julha caste is notified under the OBC category and the petitioner has submitted the affidavit in this regard with the nomination form but the same has not been considered and as per check list issued by the Returning 3 Officer, it is clearly mentioned that in respect of caste of candidate certificate given by the candidates are sufficient and the petitioner has already submitted the affidavit in respect of caste of the petitioner but the same has not been considered. It is further submitted that no any objection raised by any candidate in respect of caste of the petitioner but without any objection, respondent No.4 rejected the nomination form of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order of rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner being arbitrary & unlawful and as such the same is liable to be set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the post of Councilor is reserved for the OBC category and the petitioner belongs to general category, hence, the nomination form submitted by the petitioner against the reserved post is rejected by the respondent No.4 vide impugned order dated 29/01/2025 Annexure P-1, which is just & proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 29/01/2025. 6. The above mentioned facts are not in dispute, the only issue is rejection of a nomination paper. Rejection of a nomination paper of the petitioner 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 4 paper is included in the term. Thus, rejection of nomination is in the process of election. 7. It is the well settled law that whether the returning Officer is justified in rejecting the Form-B submitted by the petitioner herein or not, 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). 8. Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of 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), I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep