Allahabad High Court
Jp Singh @ Jai Pal Singh vs Chief Election Commissioner Of India ... on 3 June, 2024
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:101141-DB
Court No. - 64
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18501 of 2024
Petitioner :- Jp Singh @ Jai Pal Singh
Respondent :- Chief Election Commissioner Of India And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person
Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Ojha
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.
1. Heard the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Kumar Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner of India.
2. From the record, we find that the petitioner had filed a Writ C No. 12574 of 2024 with the following prayer:-
"(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to accept the nomination form of the petitioner as well as to restrain the election of IInd Phase of 10 Lok Sabha Meerut forthwith or the same may be conducted in 7th Phase of U.P.
(ii) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
This writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29.04.2024, thereafter, the petitioner filed a Public Interest Litigation, which was numbered as P.I.L. No. 986 of 2024, which was dismissed on 17.05.2024. The following order was passed in P.I.L. No. 986 of 2024:-
"1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that subject to decision of pending Civil Misc. Restoration Application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Writ-C) No. 12574 of 2024, counting of E.V.M. Machines on 04.06.2024 relating to election of Parliamentary Constituency, Meerut be stayed.
2. The aforesaid Writ-C No. 12574 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioner himself aggrieved of the rejection of the nomination paper. In the said writ petition, some restoration application is pending. Present petition, in the nature of public interest, seeking stay of the counting pursuant to the polling which was held on Parliamentary Constituency cannot be countenanced at the instance of the petitioner as he has a personal interest in the said prayer.
3. Petitioner, appearing in person, attempted to make submissions that as he wants to be Member of Parliament to serve the public, but his nomination has been rejected, the present petition seeking stay of the counting process is in public interest The said submission made is self serving and cannot be said to be public interest in any circumstance. Relief, as claimed, if available, can only be claimed in the pending proceedings and/or in a petition which is not in public interest.
4. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed"
3. As a consequence thereof, the petitioner has filed the instant petition on 22.05.2024 in-person. The petitioner also appears in-person with the following prayer in the writ petition:-
"1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to ensure stay the election process on counting of E.V.M. Machines on dated 04.06.2024 relataing to the election of Parliamentary Constituency-10 Meerut subject to the decision of pending civiil misc. restoration application in civil misc. election petition no. 12574 of 2024 before this Hon'ble Court forthwith in accordance with law."
4. We understand that the prayer in the instant writ petition is that the counting, which is to be done on 04.06.2024 be stayed, till the restoration application in Writ C No. 12574 of 2024 is decided.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Chief Election Commissioner of India, Sri Jitendra Kumar Ojha and learned Standing Counsel for the State have argued that it is settled law that when the process of election starts, no interference is to be made in writ petitions. The instant writ petition has been filed on 22.05.2024 while the election for the Lok Sabha was notified on 15.03.2024. Learned counsel appearing for the Chief Election Commissioner of India relying on the Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India has submitted that, if any election has to be questioned, it could be so done only by means of an election petition and not otherwise. The Article 329 of the Constitution of India, for the convenience is reproduced as under:-
329-"Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters
(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 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court;
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature"
6. Further in view of the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in 1978 page no. 851, wherein it has been held that High Courts need not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the issuing of the notification for the holding of the election of Lok Sabha, we are also of the view that the writ petition need not be entertained.
7. Under such circumstances, we do not consider it appropriate to interfere in the writ petition and to grant the prayer as has been prayed for by the petitioner.
8. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the acts of the Returning Officer, he can always question those acts by means of an election petition, which he may file after declaration of the results within the limitation provided by the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
9. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.6.2024
Nitika Sri.
