1 2025:CGHC:7949 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 906 of 2025 1 - Chandrakali Kathle W/o Puneet Lal Kathle Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Kirwai, P.O. Damakheda, Tahsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through The Secretary, Election Bhawan, Sector-19, North Block, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Collector And District Electoral OfÏcer Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 3 - Sub-Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) And Electoral OfÏcer Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.02.17 19:04:06 +0530 2 4 - Tahsildar And Assistant Electoral OfÏcer Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 5 - Returning OfÏcer (Panchayat Election) Janpad Panchayat, Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh 6 - Rekha Dewar W/o Santosh Kumar Dewar Aged About 38 Years R/o House No. 340, Ward No. 19, Village - Kirwai, P.O. Damakheda, Tahsil - Simga, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Anukul Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent/Election Commission : Shri Venkatesh Pandey, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction towards the respondent authorities to reject the nomination of the respondent no. 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent no. 6 filed the nomination form for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayt Kirwai, Simga District Balodabazar Bhatapara. In the said nomination form the respondent no. 6 mentioned her social status 3 as scheduled castes whereas she belongs to OBC. In this regard several complaints/objections have been raised by the various persons but the respondent authorities have not considered the said objections. 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 entertained the nomination form of the respondent no. 6. The action taken by the authorities 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 entertainment of the nomination form of the respondent no. 6. Acceptance of nomination paper of the respondent No.6 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 OfÏcer 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). 4 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 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] 5 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. 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