Bombay High Court
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal vs Vikas Maruti Pansare And Ors on 7 May, 2024
Author: A.S. Chandurkar
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
SNEHA
2024:BHC-AS:21250-DB
ABHAY
DIXIT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by SNEHA
ABHAY DIXIT
Date: 2024.05.07 WRIT PETITION NO.6735 OF 2024
20:13:31 +0530
Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal .. Petitioner
Vs.
Vikas Maruti Pansare and Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, Petitioner-in-person.
Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy with Mr. Arun Panicker, Mr. Vinay Nair, Ms. Rashmi
More and Ms. Zico Fernandes, Advocates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.5-UOI.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader, with Smt. T.N. Bhatia, Assistant
Government Pleader, for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ
DATE : 7TH MAY, 2024.
P.C. :
1. The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order dated 4 th
May 2024 passed by the Election Returning Officer, 30 Mumbai South -
Central Lok Sabha constituency. By that order, the nomination form
presented by the petitioner for contesting the parliamentary elections from
the said constituency came to be rejected on the ground that the
nomination form was incomplete.
2. The petitioner-in-person submits that on 3 rd May 2024 he had
presented his nomination form duly signed. As per the election
programme, the scrutiny of the nomination forms was on 4 th May 2024.
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
There were certain blanks in the petitioner's nomination form. According
to the petitioner he was verbally informed that time would be granted to
rectify the defects. However, by the impugned order dated 4 th May 2024,
his nomination form was rejected by stating that it was incomplete. It is
thus submitted that the petitioner ought to be now granted an opportunity
to correct / fill-in necessary details in the nomination form, which could
be done within a short period of time. The same would thus enable the
petitioner to participate in the ensuing elections. It is urged that many
other nomation forms were also rejected on similar grounds. Since the
petitioner desired to contest the general election, it is prayed that an
opportunity be granted to remove the defects in the nomination form in
the interest of justice.
3. Ms. Naira Jeejeebhoy, learned counsel appearing for respondent
nos.1 to 3 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition by submitting that in view of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Ors., AIR 1952 SC 64 , it would not be permissible to
entertain the writ petition since the election process had commenced.
Reference is made to the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of
India and it is submitted that after the results are declared, the petitioner
can avail the statutory remedy. Reliance is also sought to be placed on the
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
judgment of the Full Bench in Civil Writ Petition (Stamp) No.26 of 2021
(Karmaveer Tulshiram Autade and Ors. Vs. The State Election
Commission, Mumbai and Ors.) with connected Writ Petitions , dated 13th
January 2021. It is thus submitted that the writ petition does not deserve
to be entertained.
. Mr. P.P. Kakade, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.4
adopted the arguments made on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.
4. We have heard the petitioner-in-person as well as the learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. Since a preliminary objection to
the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised, it would be
necessary to consider the same at the outset. The order under challenge
dated 4th May 2024 has been passed by the Election Returning Officer
rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the
election process for the parliamentary election has commenced with the
issuance of notification by the Election Commission of India on 26 th April
2024. For the present constitutency, the nomination forms were to be filled
by 3rd May 2024 and scrutiny thereof was to be undertaken on 4 th May
2024. The elections, if required, are scheduled on 20 th May 2024. In this
regard, reference can be made to the provisions of Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India, which bars the interference by Courts in electoral
matters. An election to the House of Parliament can be called in question
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
only by way of an election petition presented to such authority and in such
manner as may be provided for by any law made by the appropriate
Legislature. It is well settled that the expression "election" encompasses
the entire process that commences from issuance of a notification in that
regard till the declaration of the results of such election. In the leading
decision of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami (supra), it has been
held in paragraph 12 as under :
"12. It seems to me that the word "election" has been used
in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is
to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone
through to return a candidate to the legislature. The
use of the expression "conduct of elections" in Article
324 specifically points to the wide meaning and that
meaning can also be read consistently into the other
provisions which occur in Part XV including Article
329(b). That the word "election" bears this wide
meaning whenever we talk of elections in a
democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in
most of the books on the subject and in several cases
dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted
is, when the election begins."
5. In Manda Jaganath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 492, it
has been held in paragraphs 12 to 15 as under :
"12. In our opinion, whether the Returning Officer is
justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
respondent herein or not is not a matter for the High
Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in
an election petition only.
13. It is to be seen that under Article 329(b) of the
Constitution of India, there is a specific prohibition
against any challenge to an election either to the
Houses of Parliament or to the Houses of Legislature
of the State except by an election petition presented to
such authority and in such manner as may be provided
for in a law made by the appropriate legislature.
Parliament has by enacting the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 provided for such a forum for
questioning such elections hence, under Article
329(b), no forum other than such forum constituted
under the RP Act can entertain a complaint against
any election.
14. The word "election" has been judicially defined by
various authorities of this Court to mean any and
every act taken by the competent authority after the
publication of the election notification.
15. In Ponnuswami, this Court held :
The law of elections in India does not contemplate
that there should be two attacks on matters connected
with election proceedings, one while they are going on
by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the
ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
expressly excluded) and another after they have been
completed by means of an election petition."
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 4 th May 2024 indicates that
after the petitioner submitted his nomination form, he was informed at
12:35 p.m. on 3rd May 2024 of the defects/deficiencies therein. It was
stated therein that the deficiencies indicated be removed by 11 a.m. on 4 th
May 2024. The scrutiny of nominations commenced at 11 a.m. on 4 th May
2024. It was found that the deficiencies were not removed. After referring
to nine deficiencies/blanks in the nomination form, the Election Returning
Officer has referred to the provisions of Sections 33 and 36 of the Act of
1951. He has thereafter recorded finding that the defects which were not
removed were of a substantial character and hence he proceeded to reject
the nomination paper.
. It is to be noted that under Section 100 (1) (c) of the Act of 1951
improper rejection of any nomination is a ground for declaring a election
to be void.
7. In view of the settled legal position, it is clear that any challenge to
any decision taken during the intermediate process during the course of
elections cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and that the remedy provided under the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 (for short "Act of 1951") has to be availed after the
conclusion of the elections. The impugned order dated 4 th May 2024
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
rejects the nomination form of the petitioner by recording a finding that it
was incomplete and that the defects were of a substantial character. A
remedy in that regard has been provided under Section 100(1) (c) of the
Act of 1951 and that remedy can be invoked by filing an election petition.
In that view of the matter, since the election process has commenced with
the issuance of the Notification on 26th April 2024, the provisions of Article
329(b) of the Constitution of India are clearly attracted. Permitting the
petitioner to now remove the deficiencies in the nomination form after its
rejection would amount to interfering in the election process.We are
therefore not inclined to entertain this writ petition in the midst of the
election process. With liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy under
Section 100 of the Act of 1951 at the conclusion of elections the writ
petition is not entertained. It is accordingly disposed of. All contentions of
parties are kept expressly open.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
905-WP-6735-2024.doc
Dixit
