1 2025:CGHC:6209 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 771 of 2025 1 - Vijay Golchha S/o Ranulal Golchha Aged About 62 Years (Mayor Candidate Of Indian National Congress Party) R/o House No.- 3, Katchari Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through- Secretary, Department of Urban Administration, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralya, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through Chairman, Election Building, Sector-19, North Block, Nava Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Returning Officer Municipal Corporation Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 4 - Collector Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 5 - Jagdish Ramu Rohra S/o Late Shri Bhajan Lal Rohra Mayor Candidate Of Bhartiya Janta Party, R/o Viveknand Ward Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari (C.G.) Through Election Agent Kavindra Jain. ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.04 18:47:25 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent(s)/ State : Mr. Satish Gupta, Government Advocate. For Respondent/Election Commission : Mr. Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate. For Respondent/Corporation : Ms. Preeti Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. For Objector : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, 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 passed by the respondent No.3 and to allow the petitioner to participate in the election of Mayor by submitting form-B at District Dhamtari, C.G. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the nomination form of the petitioner has been rejected by the Election Officer on the ground of objection raised by respondent No. 5 that the petitioner being a Contractor of Municipal Corporation and therefore, under Section 17(2) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioner is not eligible to contest the election. Based on the said objection, the nomination form of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 30.01.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 before passing the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 had ignored the fact that the contract given by the Municipal Corporation to the petitioner on 02.06.2023 i.e. for a period of 3 3 months and the said contract has been completed by the petitioner on 26.06.2024 and also the Work Completion Certificate has already been issued by the authorities of the Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has also deposited security amount for the said contract which is Rs. 1,90,000/- and Rs. 94,000/-, therefore, further interest directly or indirectly of the petitioner in the municipal corporation Dhamtari is not arises and Section 17(2) of the Act, not attracted in the case of 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. In support of his contention learned counsel would placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod Vs. Union of India & Others (2024 SCC Online SC 1879) and also upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Saroj Vs. Delhi State Election Commission & Another reported in 2017 SCC Online Del 8218. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent and counsel for the Objector submits that the respondent No.5 has made objection under Section 17(2) of the Act, on the ground that the petitioner has direct or indirect interest in the works of the Corporation as a Contractor. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 30/01/2025. 4 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 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. So far as the reliance placed by the petitioner upon the decision renderred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishorechandra Chhanganlal Rathod (supra), the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the said decision is relating to the delimitation exercise which resulted into reservation of a legislative assembly constituency. 9. 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 5 [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. 10.Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep