1 2025:CGHC:7192 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 838 of 2025 1 - Satyapal Khobragade S/o Late Shri D.R. Khobragade Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Kalyanpur, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon, C.G. Presently R/o Atal Nagar Colony, Pendri, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. 2 - District Election OfÏcer And Collector Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. 3 - Returning OfÏcer Panchayat, Dongargarh Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. 4 - Tarun Kumar Sinha S/o Bhikham Sinha R/o Village Kalyanpur, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. 5 - Anil Gaikwad S/o Late Shri Gendlal Gaikwad R/o Village Kalyanpur, Tahsil Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent no.5/Caveator : Shri Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.10 23:20:06 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 10.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 4/2/2025, by which the nomination form of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of panch of ward No. 1 has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, as projected in the writ petition, are that the petitioner submitted the nomination form for contesting the election for the post of Panch of Ward no. 1 of Gram Panchayat Kaliyanpur. The said nomination form has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner encroached the government land. According to the petitioner, the revenue authorities categorically submitted that the alleged encroachment property is lying vacant and as such it can be seen that the petitioner never encroached the same. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order has been passed with mala fide intention, despite the fact that he has never encroached the government land. He would submit that there is every chance of the petitioner to be elected for the post of Panch. Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has raised an objection with regard to the respondent no. 4 on the ground that he has encroached the government land but on the said objection no action has been taken by the authorities. 3 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. They would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter the authorities have 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. 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 OfÏcer 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-- 4 (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. 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 ofÏcer 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 OfÏcer, 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. 5 11. As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself. 12. Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib