Interference in electoral matters after results are declared is barred by Articles 243-O and 243-ZG; the appropriate recourse is through an election petition.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the election dated 29.11.2024 and declaration of the result dated 30.11.2024 by which the respondent no. 8 has been declared as winner and Chairman of the Sonbhadra PACS on the ground that the respondent no. 8 is neither the member nor the voter of the Sonbhadra PACS. The respondent no. 5 has passed the order dated 21.11.2024 and has accepted the nomination paper of respondent no. 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also prayed to take appropriate action against the Block Development Officer cum Election Officer, Taraiya for not performing his duty as malafidely favouring the respondent no. 8 in accepting the nomination paper improperly.

4. Learned counsel for the state as well as election authority have raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition in view of the result of the election in question having already been declared long back on 30.11.2024 which is apparent from paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition belatedly on 29.01.2025 after the election of the Sonbhadra PACS concluded.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that there being bar under Article 243-O (b) and Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India, interference by Courts in electoral matter and appropriate remedy being taking resources to filing of the election petition for the purpose of calling question and election to any PACS/Panchayat/Municipality, the present writ petition is outrightly not maintainable since the election process is completed and the result has been declared long back.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of the judgment in the case of N.S. Madhavan v. Shyamdeo Prasad , 2010 (3) PLJR 578 which are quoted hereinbelow:-

20. The question that emanates in the case at hand whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge can be treated to be one founded on the base of an exceptional circumstance. On a scrutiny of the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that the writ petitioner was given a “No Due Certificate” by the Assistant Manager, Magadh Central Co-operative Bank, Gaya on 25.9.2009. The same authority before expiry of two days issued another certificate in which it was stated that a certain sum was due. It is worth noting the said certificate was filed by one Satyendra Singh before the Returning Officer. The petitioner was asked to clarify the position. The Returning Officer also asked the District Co-operative Officer to enquire into the matter with regard to issue of the ‘No Due Certificate’. On 5.10.2009, on an enquiry a certificate was granted by the Managing Director, Magadh Central Co-operative Bank, Gaya to the District Co-operative Officer clearly stating therein that there was no due as against the writ petitioner. It is also interesting to note that all the nomination papers were rejected. As is evincible, the Returning Officer, for reasons best known to him, did not give weightage to the certificate issued by the Managing Director. When the authority had directed an enquiry and the maze was clear there was no reason to reject the nomination paper. On the contrary, the second certificate that was given at the instance of another is an erroneous one. Two aspects need to be highlighted. An incorr