Point of Law : Nomination paper of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected on the grounds that the signatures of working President of State unit of INC on Form-A does not tally with Form-B submitted by the petitioner and that a reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to justify the same.

ORDER :

The petitioner is an aspirant for contesting the election from Ward No.19 of Maski Town Municipal Council from the Indian National Congress Party (for short ‘INC’). The petitioner has filed the nomination from the INC on 15.12.2021. Another candidate who is contesting the same election, making certain allegations against the petitioner herein has filed a complaint before respondent No.3 with a prayer to reject the nomination of the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, by making a summary enquiry, respondent No.3 has rejected the nomination of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that, her nomination has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has sought to contest the election as a candidate from INC, in this regard INC has issued Form-A duly signed by the working President of the State unit of INC and that signature does not tally with the signature on Form-B submitted by the petitioner. It is her further contention that by looking at the two signatures, one can conclude that the signature does tally. The copy of Forms-A and B together are produced herewith as Annexure-B to the writ petition. It is further contended that the same is done without conducting any enquiry as contemplated in law.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the nomination of the petitioner has been rejected in accordance with law. The impugned order records that upon verification, respondent No.3 concluded that the signatures on Form-A and Form-B vary from one another and that he tried to contact the petitioner through the mobile number given so that he can hear her before passing any orders, but as she did not respond, the impugned order is passed based on the material available.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents further submit that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Municipalities is vested in the State Election Commission and as per Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India, there is a bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. The learned counsel further relies upon the provisions of Sections 21 and 23 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 and state that any grievance relating to elections including what is raised in the instant writ petition can be raised only by way of an election petition and this Court should not entertain the instant writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 202 (LAXMIBAI v. COLLECTOR, NANDED) wherein at para 43, it is held as under:

“43. Section 10A of the 1959 Act and Section 9A of the 1961 Act read with Articles 243-K and 243-O, are pari materia with Article 324 of the Constitution of India. In view of the judgments referred, we find that the remedy of an aggrieved person accepting or rejecting nomination of a candidate is by way of an election petition in view of the bar created under Section 15A of the 1959 Act. The said Act is a complete code providing machinery for redressal to the grievances pertaining to election as contained in Section 15 of the 1959 Act. The High Court though exercises extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but such jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised in view of the fact that an efficacious alternative remedy is available and more so exercise restraint in terms of Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. Once alternate machinery is provided by the statute, the recourse to writ jurisdiction is not an appropriate remedy. It is a prudent discretion to be exercised by the High Court not to interfere in the election matters, especially after declaration of the results of the elections but relegate the parties to the remedy contemplated by the statue. In view of the above, the writ petition should