Election petitions are the exclusive remedy for challenging improper rejection of nomination papers, and writ petitions are not maintainable during ongoing elections to prevent interruption of the electoral process.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, Chief Justice (Oral)--This appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners in W.P.(C)1032/2020 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 28th January, 2020 (Annexure A-17 to the memo of this appeal). As the petition of the appellants was dismissed, the original petitioners have preferred this appeal challenging the rejection of the nomination papers of the appellants by order dated 22nd January, 2020 by Returning Officer (respondent No.5).

2. The learned Single Judge has mainly pointed out that the remedy available to the appellants is by way of Election Petition as prescribed under Article 329 of the Constitution of India to be read with Sections 80 and 100 (1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 as well as in the light of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist. & Ors. reported in 1952 SCR 218 as well as in Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in AIR (1978) 1 SCC 851.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for appellants who has mainly submitted that the nomination paper of the appellants was wrongly rejected. The learned counsel further submits that the relief sought by the appellants is under Article 324 and not under Article 329 of the Constitution of India, therefore, Election Petition will not be a remedy for the appellants. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that the appellants are not in search of stay against the whole election process of Delhi Assembly Elections, 2020 but, in fact are concerned only with Assembly Seat No.40 (New Delhi) and, therefore, prayed that the rest of the elections be continued except Assembly Seat No.40 (New Delhi). It is also submitted by the learned counsel for appellants that it is a constitutional right of this appellants to contest the election. Learned Counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the aforesaid decisions reported in N.P. Ponnuswamy vs. Returning Officer & Ors. (Supra), Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. (Supra) as well as upon a decision reported in Election Commission of India vs. Ashok Kumar & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 216. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it has been contended by the learned counsel for appellants that nomination paper of the appellants are wrongly/improperly rejected by the Returning Officer and, therefore, petition under Article 226 is tenable at law. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, original petitioners' constitutional right to contest the election has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned judgment. Hence, the judgment and order dated 28th January, 2020 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 1032/2020 deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 who has mainly submitted that Delhi Assembly Elections, 2020 has already been commenced as per notification already issued for Delhi Assembly Elections, 2020. Various dates have already been published which are referred to at page 148 to the memo of this appeal. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 that looking to the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India to be read with Section 80 as well as Section 100 (1)(c) of the Representation of People Act,