1 2025:CGHC:6576 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 806 of 2025 1. Abhilesh Kumar Yadav S/o Balaram Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village-Karra, Post-Gudi, Tahsil And Police Station Seepat, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner Versus 1. State Election Commission, Through Election Commissioner, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. District Returning Officer (Panchayat)-Cum-Chief Executive Officer Zila Panchayat Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. Assistant Returning Officer (Panchayat) Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Collector Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ Election Commission : Shri Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Adv. General For Objector Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 5/2/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 4/2/2025 Annexure P-3 passed by the respondent 2 No.2, by which the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of Memberm, Zila Panchayat, has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner is going to contest Panchayat Elections to the post of Member Zila Panchayat from Membership Area No. 10 and for which he has filed his nomination paper on 29.01.2025 wherein complete details were mentioned by the petitioner. 04.02.2025 was the date fixed in the election programme for making objections with regard to the eligibility of the candidates before the respondent no.2 wherein one Sumit Lahre made an objection stating that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of Government land bearing Khasra No. 34/1, total area 0.48 acres situated at village Karra, Tahsil-Seepat District Bilaspur (C.G.) by constructing Kuttcha shed over the land and he has also been imposed fine amounting to Rs.2000/- by the Tahsildar Seepat in case No.27- A68/2015-16. According to the petitioner, the objection was not duly supported by an affidavit of the objector and even the objector was not even appeared before the respondent No.2 for pressing the allegations made in the objection. The objection was only enclosed with a photograph which is not clear as to whether it is the same land for which the objection was raised or a different land wherein name of one Dilendra Kaushil is mentioned. The petitioner was given only one hour time for replying /rebutting the allegations. The petitioner in order to rebut the allegations made in the objection filed his affidavit wherein it was admitted that he was imposed fine of Rs.2000/- after he was being found in an unauthorized possession of Government land in the year 3 2016 but after that he is no longer in possession of any Government land. However, the respondent No.2 without considering the submissions of the petitioner accepted the objection on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove his case and rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No.2 was under obligation to act reasonably in order to secure the constitutional mandate of free and fair election. He would submit that the petitioner has been deprived of his legal and constitutional rights of fair and equal treatment. The respondent no.2 has failed to record its subjective satisfaction before rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. He would submit that the respondent no.2 ought to have satisfy itself before holding that the present petitioner as an encroacher over the Government land which has already been stated on oath that he has vacated the Government land since 2016. He would lastly submit that the order impugned is passed without application of mind and the respondent no.2 has failed to record proper reasons for rejection of nomination of petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission; State; as also the objector, per contra, would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. They would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter the respondent No.2 rightly rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. The order impugned is just and proper and warranting no interference of this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 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. It is noteworthy to mention here that bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters has been provided under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which reads thus : 243-O. Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters.--Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution-- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any Law made by the Legislature of a State. 5 9. Rule 21 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995 (henceforth ‘the Rules, 1995’) speaks about grounds for declaring election to be void. Rule 21(1)(c) provides that : 21. Grounds for declaring election to be void.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) if the specified officer is of opinion- xxx xxx xxx (c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected; or From the above provision, it is apparent that the Rules, 1995 provide a remedy to question the improper rejection of nomination form. 10. Considering the facts of the case, grievance raised and decision of the 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), and also considering Article 243-O of the Constitution of India and Rule 21(1)(c) of the Rules, 1995, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition as the writ petition is not maintainable. 11. As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.02.06 16:49:13 +0530 6