Back
1995 Supreme(Pat) 58
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.
Ashok Srivastava & ors. (in 208),
Kampal Giri (in 211)
Jogeshwar Mahto & ors. (in 214) - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar & ors. - Respondents in all cases.
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 208, 211 and 214 of 1995 (R)
Decided on: 30.1.1995
For the Petitioners: M/s Rajendra Prasad Singh with A. K. Sahani (in 208); with P.C. Tripathy (in 214); A. K. Sahani (in 211).
For the respondents in all cases: M/s M. Y. Eqbal, Alok Lal & M. S. Akhtar.
The High Court's writ jurisdiction is barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution from interfering with an election process once it has commenced.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION REJECTION - GROUNDS - DISQUALIFICATION - MANAGING AGENT OF COMPANY - CASTE CERTIFICATE - DELAY IN FILING - WRIT JURISDICTION - MAINTAINABILITY - ARTICLE 329(B) OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the rejection of their nomination papers for the State Legislature election on various grounds, including disqualification as managing agents of a company, caste certificate issues, and delay in filing. They sought a direction to the Returning Officer to accept their nominations and allow them to contest the election.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court's writ jurisdiction is barred under Article 329(b) of the Constitution from interfering with an election process once it has commenced. The appropriate remedy for aggrieved candidates is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere with an election process after its commencement. 2. Whether the petitioners' nominations were validly rejected on the grounds of disqualification, caste certificate issues, and delay in filing.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which bars courts from calling into question the validity of an election except by an election petition presented to the appropriate authority. 2. The court also considered various Supreme Court precedents holding that interference with an election process during its pendency is generally improper.
Final Decision: All three writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to seek redress through an election petition before the Election Tribunal.
S. K. Chattopadhyaya, J. - Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. M. Y. Eqbal, learned G. A. appearing on behalf of the State. With their consent, all these three writ applications involving common questions of law, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment at the time of admission stage itself.
2. In C.W.J.C. No. 208 of 1995 (R), petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.1.1995 passed by the respondent no. 2, the Returning Officer, by reason of which the nominations submitted by the petitioners have been rejected. The impugned order have been annexed as Annexure 3 series. Petitioners for the purpose of contesting the ensuing election to the State Legislature filed their nomination papers in the office of the respondent no. 2 on 23.1.1995 after obtaining necessary permission from their employer to contest the election. By a letter dated 18.1.1995 the authority of Bokaro Steel Plant granted permission to the petitioner no. 1 for contesting the election. The respondent no. 2 rejected the nomination papers of the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 on the ground that the candidates are the managing agents of the Bokaro Steel Limited and as such, they are disqualified for contesting the election in view of Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Nomination of petitioner no. 5 has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner no. 5 did not submit the certified copies of the relevant portions of the 279 Bokaro Assembly Constituency, when admittedly he was an elector in 279 Bokaro
3. In CWJC No. 211/95(R), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of the respondent no. 3, the Returning Officer, dated 24.1.1995 by reason of which the nomination paper submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not the member of scheduled tribe. This order has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his nomination paper annexing the caste certificate granted by the District Welfare Officer, Singhbhum (West), Chaibasa. The Returning Officer, on the basis of entry made in the Khatian, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a "Gaur" by caste and as such, he does not come in the category of scheduled tribe.
4. In CWJC No. 214/95 (R), the petitioners have prayed for a direction on the respondent no. 2, the Returning Officer, to allot symbol and permit the petitioners to context the election. The petitioners, 'in terms of programme schedule for holding, election, filed their nomination papers' at about 11.30 A.M. on 23.1.1995 before the respondent no.2, the last date for filing the nomination papers. Due to some miscreants, who entered into the office of the Returning Officer at 1 P.M. to take forms and left the place at 3.10 P.M., there was some delay in between 1 P.M. to 3.10 P.M. and as such, the petitioners submitted their nomination forms by or within 3 P.M. on 24.1.1995, it is alleged that the petitioners were informed that nomination papers submitted by them were rejected on the ground of delay. However, no such order has been annexed with this application.
5. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the rejection of the nomination papers of the petitioners of CWJC No. 208/95 (R) is totally illegal inasmuch as none of the petitioners nos. 1 to 4 are the agents of B.S.L. Referring to various sections of' the Companies Act, Mr. Singh further submits that in any view of these provisions the petitioner nos. 1 to 4 cannot be treated as agents of B.S.L. and as such, rejection of their candidature is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Referring to supplementary affidavit it is submitted that the Returning Officer has discriminated between one candidate and others in the same constituency and as such, the order of Returning Officer is vitiated in law. Challenging the order of the R
