[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mrs. Ganga Shree vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
1 WP-49824-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
ON THE 19 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 49824 of 2025
MRS. GANGA SHREE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kuber Boddh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Vijay Sundaram - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenges the order dated 16/12/2025 passed by the Returning Officer, Municipal
Council, Mau, District Bhind, (M.P.), whereby the nomination form submitted by
the petitioner as a candidate for election to the post of Councillor, Ward No.4,
Nagar Parishad, Mau, District Bhind, (M.P.), has been rejected on the ground that
the petitioner had failed to submit the "No Electricity Dues Certificate" along with
the nomination form by 11:30 AM on 16/12/2025.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was the sole candidate whose nomination form was submitted for the post of
Councillor, Ward No.4, Municipal Council, Mau, in the ongoing by-election of the
said municipality. In the nomination form (Annexure-P/2) at Clause 6, there was a
condition for the submission of a "No Electricity Dues Certificate," against which
the petitioner has mentioned "no", as according to the petitioner, the requirement
of submission of "No Electricity Dues Certificate" is applicable only to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
2 WP-49824-2025
government employees or the persons who have held government offices earlier.
3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places
reliance on the circular dated 13.05.2024 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the Election
Commission of India. Furthermore, the learned counsel submits that during the
process of scrutiny of his nomination form, he was informed by the Returning
Officer regarding the non-furnishing of the "No Electricity Dues Certificate".
Therefore, the petitioner immediately obtained the same and submitted it before
the Returning Officer. However, arbitrarily, vide Annexure-P/6, the same was
declined to be accepted on the ground that no such certificate was submitted by
the petitioner or his proposer by 11:30 AM on 16/12/2025, which was the
prescribed date and thereby rejected his nomination form.
4. Learned counsel submits that, firstly, there was no legal requirement for
him to submit the "No Electricity Dues Certificate." Yet, he tried to obtain and
submit the same to the Returning Officer, but acceptance was arbitrarily declined.
He further submits that since no other candidate submitted a nomination form for
the election in question, the petitioner would have been declared elected
unopposed. However, due to the arbitrary action of the Returning Officer, the
petitioner is being made to suffer.
5. On being put a specific query regarding the maintainability of the writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the rejection of
a nomination form in an ongoing election process and the scope of interference
once an election schedule has been declared, learned counsel for the petitioner
places reliance upon a reported judgment of this Court in the case of Ghanshyam
Tiwari and Others vs. State of M.P. and Others (ILR 2010 MP 1517), to contend
that if the ongoing election process is vitiated and there is no election in the eyes
of law, then certainly, the writ petition can be entertained as has been held in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
3 WP-49824-2025
said case. He also places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) vs. Secretary, Governor's Secretariat & Ors.
(2020) 6 SCC 548.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission.
7. It is undisputed that the election schedule for by-elections in the
municipalities in the State of Madhya Pradesh has been declared by the M.P. State
Election Commission vide notification dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure-P/9). As per
the schedule prescribed therein, the last date for submission of nomination forms
was 15.12.2025 between 10:30 AM to 3:00 PM. The date for scrutiny of the
nomination forms was scheduled for 16.12.2025 and the date for withdrawal of
nomination was up to 18.12.2025.
8. The perusal of the nomination form submitted by the petitioner
(Annexure-P/2) indicates that in the particulars of the documents which are
required to be annexed with the nomination form, at clause 6, there is a
requirement of submission of a "No Electricity Dues Certificate" in terms of
Section 35 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Admittedly, the petitioner had
not submitted the said certificate along with the nomination form.
9. Section 35 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, dealing with the
disqualification of candidates, and clause (s) thereof, reads as under:
"35. Disqualification of candidates.- [No person shall be eligible for
[election as a President or] election or nomination as a Councillor] if he-
[(s) has any dues, payable to the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity
Board or its successor companies, standing against his name for a
period exceeding six months:]"
10.Thus, in order to ascertain the qualification of a candidate to contest for
an election of Counselor, the requirement of he having no dues pending against the
Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board or its successor company is the
requirement provided under the Act itself. The said provision does not carve any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
4 WP-49824-2025
distinction for a candidate who has not held any government assignment in the
past. The said provision applies equally to all candidates who intend to contest the
election.
11.The contention thus raised by the petitioner that there was no
requirement for him to submit the "No Electricity Dues Certificate" is misplaced.
12.The issue which now arises for consideration before this Court, is that
once the nomination of the petitioner for election to the post of Counselor is
rejected, then against the said rejection, whether the instant writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable?
13.Part IX-A of the Constitution of India deals with the Municipality
"Article 243 (Z)(g)(b) provides that no election under any Municipality shall be
called in question except by the election petition presented to such authority and in
such manner as is provided by or under any law made by Legislature of the
State".
14.Legislature made by the State i.e. M.P. Municipality Act, 1961, section
20 therein provides for filing of the election petition and the same reads as under :-
"20. Election petitions.-(1) No election or [nomination] under
this Act be called into question except by a petition presented
in accordance with the provisions of this section."
15.Section 21 deals with relief that can be claimed in an election petition
reads as under :-
"21. Relief that may be claimed by petitioner.- (1) A
petitioner may claim-
(a) a declaration that the election or [nomination] of all or any
of the returned candidates is void; and
(b) in addition thereto a further declaration that he himself or
any other candidate has been duly elected."
16.Section 22 of the Act of 1961 dealing with the ground for declaration of
the election or nomination to be void reads as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
5 WP-49824-2025
"22.Grounds for declaring election or 2[nomination] to be
void.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
Judge is of the opinion-
(a) & (b) xxxxxxxx
(c) that any nomination paper has been improperly rejected;
or"
17.In view of above provisions of Constitution of India read with
Legislature of the State, it is abundantly clear that once election process has
commenced then interference in the same under Article 226 of Constitution of
India is ordinarily not warranted, particularly, when law itself provides for remedy
of filing of election petition and improper rejection of nomination form is a
specific ground prescribed for challenging the election to be void.
18.The said aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in the case of
N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, 1952 (1) SCC
94 and the relevant para of the judgment read as under :-
"40. We are informed that besides the Madras High Court, seven other
State High Courts have held that they have no jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to entertain petitions regarding improper
rejection of nomination papers. This view is, in my opinion, correct and
must be affirmed. The appeal must, therefore, fail and is dismissed. In
view of the nature and importance of the points raised in this appeal,
there should be no order as to costs."
19.The judgments in the case of Ghanshyam Tiwari (Supra) and Dravida
Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner are not
applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case as neither it is the case,
wherein, the entire election process appears to be vitiated nor it is the case,
wherein, proper exercise of delimitation of the ward is under challenge.
20.In view of above, the interference in the writ petition, at this stage, is
declined. Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to avail the remedy of
election petition against rejection of his nomination paper, if so advised. In case,
any such election petition is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:33638
6 WP-49824-2025
and decided by Election Tribunal in accordance with law without being
influenced by any observation /finding made by this Court in the instant petition.
21.The instant petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
