Point of Law: Right to contest at an election is a very valuable right.

JUDGMENT :

1. The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to accept the nomination of the petitioner for the election to the Senate from the Constituency of Presidents of all the registered Trade Unions in the State. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to the 4th respondent to declare the petitioner as having been validly elected to the said post.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: Ext.P1 notification was published on 27.12.2022 by the 4th respondent for election to the Senate and Academic Council of the Cochin University. The Senate of the Cochin University consists of various members out of which two members, elected by the registered Trade Unions in the State from among themselves. In the final electoral roll published by the 4th respondent for the constituency “Presidents of all the registered Trade Unions in the State” name of the petitioner is shown in Sl.No.23 as the President of Kerala State Vazhiyora and Skilled Thozhilali Congress. Pursuant to Ext.P1 notification petitioner submitted his nomination for the election to the Senate from the constituency of “Presidents of all the registered Trade Unions in the State” before the scheduled date and time. Petitioner was the only person who submitted the nomination out of 357 persons in the final electoral roll for the said constituency. To the shock and dismay of the petitioner, after scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination was rejected by the 4th respondent on the ground that the address portion has been overwritten. Immediately the agent of the petitioner challenged the decision of the 4th respondent and informed that even though the petitioner's signature is seen overwritten, all the details given are clearly legible and requested not to reject the petitioner's nomination only on this technical ground. The agent also tried to convince the 4th respondent that sign alone was accidently overwritten in the address portion as there was no sufficient space in the nomination paper to include all the details. However, 4th respondent rejected the nomination without considering the objections raised by the agent of the petitioner. Immediately petitioner had sent an email to the 4th respondent requesting him to reconsider the rejection of his nomination after giving him an opportunity of being heard. However no reply to the email sent by the petitioner was received. Thereafter petitioner submitted Ext.P2 representation before the 4th respondent again requesting to reconsider his nomination after giving an opportunity of being heard. It is at this juncture the petitioner has approached this Court filing the above writ petition contending that the 4th respondent purposefully rejected the nomination of the petitioner and has acted in a malafide manner on account of political considerations. Petitioner submits that his nomination has been illegally rejected as some other persons in the electorate belonging to a particular political party though wished to submit the nominations to the constituency of “Presidents of all the registered Trade Unions in the State” could not file the same within the date and time scheduled. Petitioner's nomination is purposefully rejected on technical grounds as the respondents want the seat to become vacant and thereafter conduct bye-election to the said post. Such illegal action smacks of malafides and cannot under any circumstances be permitted to be effected and the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent who is the returning officer, mainly contending that the nomination submitted by the petitioner was rejected on valid grounds and that a challenge against the rejection of nomination is not maintainable before this Court and the petitioner has filed the above writ petition on an experimental basis. The nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there was overwriting. Ext.R1(a) is