IMPORTANT POINTS
Rejection of nomination due to failure to submit election expenses within the period prescribed in the Grama Panchayat elections, and it was held that election petition is the sole remedy to impugn rejection of nomination papers.

JUDGMENT :

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The captioned writ appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 25778 of 2020 dated 25.11.2020, whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the rejection of nomination submitted by the writ petitioner to the Kalamassery Municipality as per Ext. P11 order dated 20.11.2020 holding that the nomination of the appellant to ward No. 31 was received by the subordinate staff in the Office of the Returning Officer after 3 p.m. on 19.11.2020. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, this appeal is preferred.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows :

Appellant submitted his nominations for contesting from ward No.31 of Kalamassery Municipality, which were registered as serial Nos. 202, 203 and 204 evident from Exts. P2 to P4. On 19.11.2020, some other candidates also submitted their nominations for contesting from ward No. 31, which were registered as serial Nos. 209 to 213 produced and marked as Exts. P5 to P9. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was on 20.11.2020, on which date the Returning Officer namely the second respondent in the appeal rejected the nomination papers of the appellant on the allegation that she has received a report from the 5th respondent that the nomination papers of the appellant were received only after 3 p.m. on 19.11.2020, which was the outer time fixed for receipt of the nominations. According to the appellant, it was on making a request that Ext. P11 rejection order was given to the appellant.

3. The paramount contentions advanced by the appellant was that the nominations submitted by the others after the submission of the nominations by the appellant were accepted. That apart, it was predominantly contended that the time recorded in Exts. P2 to P4 nominations submitted by the appellant was at 2.56 p.m. Whereas, the nominations of others produced as Exts. P5 to P9 were registered only at 2.58 p.m., and having received the nominations of other persons submitted after the appellant, was nothing but an arbitrary, mala fide and illegal exercise demonstrated by the officers and therefore, interference is required in terms of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar and others [(2000) 8 SCC 216.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election commission, addressed arguments relying upon the statement filed before the learned Single Judge, that the general election of the Local Self Government institutions in Kerala was notified on 12.11.2020 and the election process is in progress. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable, in view of the bar of jurisdiction created under Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out that the issue raised by the appellant is set at naught by the Constitution Bench judgments of the Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District [AIR 1952 SC 64] and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [AIR 1978 SC 851]. Other facts and figures with respect to the candidates contesting in the election all over kerala and the adverse consequences that can occur, if an interference is made by this Court are also projected. That apart, it was contended that the nominations were finally scrutinised on 23.11.2020 and the final list of candidates were published and the election process has further progressed to the steps for printing the ballot papers. It was also pointed out that the election is to take place from 08.12.2020 onwards and therefore, any interference made would cause serious prejudice to the election process and its progress.

5. We have heard Smt. M. A. Vaheeda Babu for the appellant, Sri. Murali Purushothaman for the State Election Commission and Sri. Aravind Kumar Babu, learned Senior G