S. MANIKUMAR, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, issuance of a Writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 in turn direct the 4th respondent to accept the nomination Form No.26 of the petitioner to enable him to contest in the Tamil Nadu Bye Election 2019, 55 Hosur Assembly Constituency, Krishnagiri District.

1. G.C. Ramasamy, has filed his nominations for Hosur Assembly Constituency. On 27.03.2019, about 10AM his nomination / Form-26 was returned due to non filling of column no.6 of Part-A. According to the petitioner, he was directed to file fresh nomination by duly filling up Column No.6 Part-A, which was left unfilled, in his original nomination form. Though, he had prepared the fresh affidavit and presented the same before the Chief Election Commissioner and others, in time, the Returning Officer, Hosur Assembly Constituency and Revenue Divisional Officer, Hosur, Krishnagiri District, rejected the nomination.

2. Being aggrieved, instant writ petition is filed for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3, in turn, to direct the 4th respondent to accept the nomination Form No.26 of the petitioner to enable him to contest in the Tamil Nadu Bye Election 2019, 55 Hosur Assembly Constituency, Krishnagiri District.

3. Added further, Mrs.R.Aparna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, an independent candidate nomination form has been rejected, whereas, nomination of Mrs.B.Jothi Reddy, 5th respondent, has been accepted.

4. Referring to Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, read with Section 80 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the Election Commission of India, made preliminary objections as to maintainability of the writ petition.

5. Heard Mrs.R.Aparna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel for Election Commission of India and perused the materials available on record.

6. In N.P.Ponnuswami and the Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, and others reported in AIR (39) 1952 Supreme Court 64, a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered as to whether the word “election” used in Article 329(b) of the Constitution, embrace the whole procedure of election and confine to the final result thereof, and whether rejection or acceptance of the nomination paper is included in the term, “election”. Several High Courts have held that they have no jurisdiction either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the case may be, to entertain petitions regarding improper rejection of nomination papers.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the law, as existed prior to the enactments of the Representation of the People Act, constitutional provisions and a catena of decisions, held as follows:-

"4. The first argument which turns on the construction of Article 329(b) requires serious consideration, but I think the second argument can be disposed of briefly at the outset. It should be stated that what the appellant chooses to call anomaly can be more appropriately described as hardship or prejudice and what their nature will be has been stated in forceful language by Wallace, J. in Sarvothama Rao v. Chairman, Municipal Council, Saidapet [(1924) ILR 47 Mad 585 at 600] in these words:

“I am quite clear that any post-election remedy is wholly inadequate to afford the relief which the petitioner seeks, namely, that this election, now published, be stayed, until it can be held with himself as a candidate. It is no consolation to tell him that he can stand for some other election. It is no remedy to tell him that he must let the election go on and then have it set aside by petition and have a fresh election ordered. The fresh election may be under altogether different conditions and may bring forward an array of fresh candidates. The petitioner can only hav