1 2025:CGHC:8303 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 942 of 2025 1 - Smt. Minakshi Chouhan W/o Dinesh Chouhan Aged About 34 Years R/o Katangkhar, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Throuh Its Secretary, Panchayat And Rural Development Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The State Election Commission Chhattisgarh, Through Its Secretary, Nirvachan Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3 - The Collector Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.). 4 - The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.). 5 - The Tehsildar And Returning Officer (Panchayat Election) Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.). 6 - Anish Nayak S/o Rajeshwar Nayak R/o Village Katangkhar, Tehsil Kansabel, District Jashpur (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.02.18 16:12:18 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy.A.G. For Respondent/Election Commission : Mr. Venketesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 04.02.2025, by which the nomination form of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted the nomination form to contest the Janpad Panchayat Election, Kansabel, Ward No.12, against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. He would further submit that the respondent No.6 has raised an objection alleging that the petitioner does not belong to SC community. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted documentary proof in support of her claim, however, the Returning Officer without appreciating the material placed by the petitioner in its true perspective rejected the nomination form of the petitioner in an illegal and arbitrary manner. 3. 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 action taken by the authorities is just and proper 3 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 the nomination form of the petitioner. Rejection of 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. 6. It is the well settled law that whether the returning Officer is justified in passing the impugned order, 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-- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such 4 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 officer is of opinion- xxx xxx xxx (c) that any nomination paper has been 9. 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 5 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. 12.Consequently, the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep