The rejection of the petitioner's nomination for not being an elector as on the date of filing nomination and for filing the application for inclusion on the last date for filing nomination was justified based on the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India, the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.

ORDER :

1. Challenging order dated 21.04.2023 passed by respondent no. 3 at Annexure-D rejecting petitioner’s nomination and seeking for direction, directing respondents to enroll name of petitioner in electoral list of Karnataka and consequently permit petitioner to contest election for Karnataka State Assembly by accepting his nomination etc. this writ petition is filed.

2. Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Manjunath S. advocate for petitioner submitted that prior to going to Dubai for earning livelihood, petitioner was born and brought up in Bangalore. After return to Bangalore recently, he had involved himself in various social activities to serve public.

3. It was submitted that petitioner intended to contest general elections for Legislative Assembly of Karnataka from Shivajinagar, Bangalore constituency. He was issued with ‘B’ Form by Janata Dal (Secular) Party to contest election.

4. Petitioner made online application for registration in electoral list on 20.04.2023. Online platform registered his application as submitted successfully by allotting reference number namely Ref. I.D. ONA468104865.

5. Petitioner also filed nomination paper before respondent no. 3-Returning Officer on 20.04.2023. However, petitioner was shocked when respondent no. 3 proceeded to pass impugned order rejecting petitioner’s nomination.

6. It was submitted that only reason assigned by respondent no. 3 for rejecting petitioner’s nomination was that petitioner was not included in list of electoral roll in Karnataka. It was submitted that as per Para No. 1.7.3 of handbook of Returning Officers 2022 referred to in impugned order, addition of names in electoral roll would be carried out till last date of filing nominations. Though, petitioner had submitted application for entering his name in electoral roll on 20.04.2023 which was last date for filing nomination and therefore, required to be considered. Without such consideration, rejection of nomination was contrary to law. It was submitted that Article 326 of Constitution of India 1950, merely prescribe that applicant should be citizen of India and not less than 18 years of age. Intention of fixing minimum criteria was to enable anyone with said qualification to contest election. It was submitted that Section 4(d) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘RoPA 1951’) as also Section 5(c) thereof only state that candidate should be an elector for any assembly constituency and do not mandate that candidate should be an elector as on date of filing nomination. As inclusion of name in electoral roll could be made even after filing nomination, and when petitioner’s application for inclusion of his name in electoral roll was pending, rejection of petitioner’s nomination was contrary to law and called for interference.

7. It was submitted that Section 36 of RoPA, 1951, did not mention non-inclusion of name in electoral roll as ground for rejecting nomination. Therefore, rejection was in violation of Section 33 to 36 of ROPA 1951.

8. It was submitted that procedure for preparation of electoral rolls was governed by Part-II of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (‘Rules’ for short) and Rules 16, 17 and 18, were in respect of correction of electoral rolls, while Rule 8 was for preparation of electoral roll. It was submitted that inclusion of name in electoral roll could be made even after filing of nomination.

9. On other hand, Sri. S.R. Dodawad, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 to 3 submitted that writ petition challenging rejection of nomination was not maintainable after publication of calendar of events. Relying upon decision in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar and Others, 2000 (8) SCC 216 submitted that interference by High Court in election process after its commencement was barred. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that only on satisfaction of dual tests viz. (i) order sought from Court did not have effect of retarding, interru