1 2025:CGHC:8337 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 996 of 2025 1 Anupa Bhagat W/o Premkumar Bhhagat Aged About 30 Years Cast Oraon / Scheduled Tribe (Ex- Sarpach R/o Village Kodapani Block Duldula Panchayat Jhargaon District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat Mantralaya Atal Nagar New Raipur (C.G.) 2 State Election Commission State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Sector 19 North Block New Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Collector District - Jashpur (C.G.) 4 Sub Divisional Officer (R) Tahsil Duldula District - Jashpur (C.G.) 5 Returning Officer Duldula District - Jashpur (C.G.) 6 Baleshwar Ram Bhagat S/o Jakalram Bhagat R/o Village Jhargaon Block Duldula District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Hemant Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1/State : Shri R.K. Gupta, Addl A.G. JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.02.18 16:54:34 +0530 2 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 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, on the basis of the objection raised by respondent No. 6 with regard to the caste of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner submitted the nomination form for the post of Sarpanch of Gram panchayat Kodapani block Duldula, District Jashpur, C.G.. The said nomination form of the petitioner has been rejected on the basis of the objection raised by the respondent No. 6 with regard to the caste of the petitioner. The said order has been passed without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case in its true perspective. 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 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. 3 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 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 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 Officer, Nanmakkal Constituency & Ors [AIR 1952 SC 64], 4 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 Jyoti