Savita vs State Of Haryana And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5966 P&H

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

111                                      CWP-13447-2022
                                         Decided on : 13.06.2022

Savita                                                               ... Petitioner
                                        Versus
State of Haryana & others                                            ... Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. Fateh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Ms.Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 06.06.2022

(Annexure P-3) whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner had been

rejected. Said order reads as under:

"Keeping in view the clarification received from State Election Commission Haryana, Panchkula to this office vide letter No. SEC/1ME/2022/3056/Dated 03/06/2022, Nomination paper of Smt. Savita for ward No.13 is hereby Rejected as the name of the applicant in the electoral Roll is registered as Smt. Savita Whereas her name in education qualification certificate is Lalitesh."

A perusal of Rule 85 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules,

1978 would go on to show that if any nomination paper has been improperly

rejected, the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be

void. It is apparent that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way

of filing a election petition before an authorized Tribunal. Unfortunately, this

aspect has not been mentioned in the petition and rather a categoric averment

has been made that there is no appeal/statutory revision which lies against the

illegal action of the respondents. Similarly, it has been averred that there is

1 of 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

no other alternative or efficacious remedy including the remedy of revision or

appeal except to approach the High Court. The present petition is silent about

the alternative or efficacious remedy which is available.

The law is very clear that in case the High Court is approached

with unclean hands, the discretionary relief is not to be exercised. Reliance in

regard to the alternative remedy can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & others, 2010 (8)

SCC 110.

In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the

present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed.

                                                     (G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
                                                            JUDGE



                                                      (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
June 13, 2022                                               JUDGE
sailesh

              Whether speaking/reasoned:       Yes/No
              Whether Reportable:              Yes/No




                               2 of 2