1 2025:CGHC:7699 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 900 of 2025 1 - Kekti Maravi W/o Rajendra Kumar Maravi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Sarodhi, Tahsil Salhewara, Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Panchayat Department, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh 3 - Returning OfÏcer (Jila Panchayat) Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan- Gandai Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Election OfÏcer Jila Panchayat Election, Distt. Khairagarh- Chuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.02.17 17:21:40 +0530 2 5 - Hemlata Mandavi W/o Manoj Mandavi Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Sarodhi, Tahsil Salhewara, Distt. Khairagarh-Chuikhadan-Gandai Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Roshan Dubey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the impugned order dated 4/2/2025, by which the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of nomination form of the respondent No.5 has been rejected on the ground that the same has been raised at a belated stage. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner raised an objection regarding the candidature of the respondent no. 5 on the ground that along with her nomination form she has not submitted her caste certificate, however, the authorities rejected the said objection of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the same has been raised at a later stage. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the aforesaid submission of the petitioner. He would submit that after considering all the aspects of the matter the authorities have rightly 3 rejected the nomination form of the petitioner. The order impugned is just and proper and warranting no interference of this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 5. 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. 6. 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). 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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 10. As a sequel, the present writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, at the admission stage itself. Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri/shoaib