1 2025:CGHC:6207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 723 of 2025 1 - Smt. Nirmala Sharma W/o Vijay Sharma Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Nagar-Panchayat- Bishrampur, Distt- Surajpur (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- Surajpur Surajpur, Distt- Surajpur,Chhattisgarh 4 - Returning Officer- Nagar Panchayat Bishrampur Distt- Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 5 - Nirmala Yadav W/o Rajesh Yadav Aged About 48 Years R/o Miners Colony Bishrampur, Distt- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.05 17:56:26 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer. For Respondent/Election Commission : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, 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 30/01/2025 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 President of Nagar Panchayat Bishrampur Distt- Surajpur (C.G) 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 President of Nagar Panchayat Bishrampur Distt- Surajpur (C.G) has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted the Caste certificate of OBC category with the nomination form and without considering the affidavit submitted by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is belongs to Caste Barhi (Carpenter) and the Caste Barhi (Carpenter) 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 as per 3 check list and guidelines issued by the election commission, in which, it has clearly mentioned that in respect of caste of candidate, affidavit given by the candidates are sufficient and the petitioner has already submitted the affidavit in respect of caste of the petitioner. It is further submitted that an objection raised by one contesting candidate Nirmala Yadav in respect of caste of the petitioner and upon objection, petitioner submitted detailed reply of the complaint and submitted the guidelines issued by the election commission before the respondent No.4, but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and guideline issued by the election commission, 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/State and counsel for the objector submits that the sufficient opportunity has been provided to the petitioner for hearing, but the petitioner has not produced documents related to his caste, hence, impugned order dated 30/01/2025 Annexure P-1 is just & proper. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 30/01/2025. 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 4 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, 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