SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(P&H) 784

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jitendra Chauhan, Vivek Puri, JJ.
Pankaj Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab & Ors. - Respondents
CM-2390-CWP-2021 IN/AND CWP-2904-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 12-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. G.P.S. Ghumman, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. S.P.S. Tinna, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the rejection of nomination papers is to file an election petition.

Headnote:

Election - Rejection of Nomination Papers - Article 243-ZG, Section 11, Section 89(1), Section 74 - The court discussed the provisions of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, Section 11, Section 89(1), and Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994. The court emphasized that the right to contest an election is a statutory right and the statute may lay down the qualifying or disqualifying conditions for a contesting candidate. The court also highlighted that a writ petition challenging the rejection of nomination is effectively a petition challenging the election, and the appropriate remedy is to file an election petition. The court referred to various legal provisions and previous judgments to support its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking cancellation of an order that rejected his nomination for elections and to declare him entitled to contest the elections. The State counsel argued that the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy under the Constitution and the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the rejection of nomination papers is to file an election petition. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not maintainable and that the petitioner should avail the alternate remedy available to him.

Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition challenging the rejection of nomination papers was maintainable, considering the statutory provisions and legal precedents.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to contest an election is a statutory right, and the appropriate remedy for challenging the rejection of nomination papers is to file an election petition. The court emphasized that the judicial intervention can only be extended to correct or smoothen the process of the election proceedings and not to interrupt, obstruct, or delay the progress of the election.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was not maintainable, and advised the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available to him.

ORDER

Vivek Puri, J. - The matter has been taken up through video-conferencing in the light of the pandemic COVID-19 situation and as per instructions.

CM-2390-CWP-2021

Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.

Main petition

2. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, seeking cancellation of impugned order dated 04.02.2021 for FORM No. 22 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.5, wherein, the name of the petitioner does not figure in the list of genuine nominated candidates; and to declare the petitioner entitled to contest the elections.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that order dated 04.02.2021 was deliberately not made available to the petitioner and has been issued to him only yesterday under the influence of local MLA of the rival Indian National Congress, whereas, the petitioner comes from Shiromani Akali Dal. Further states that the order has been passed without considering the receipt dated 25.01.2021 (Annexure P-5), which depicts that the petitioner has been regularly paying the taxes due to him as well as copy of letter issued by the Municipal Council, Sirhind dated 06.10.1989 (Annexure P-12) and map (Annexure P-13), which clearly reflect that the structure was raised after due permission of the competent authority.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel states that the petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy under Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution of India read with Section 74 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'). Without availing the same, he has approached this Court, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Heard.

6. Before proceeding further, it shall be appropriate to refer to the provisions of law which are relevant to settle the instant controversy. Article 243-ZG of the Constitution bars the interference by the Courts in electoral matters and it provides as following:-

"243-ZG. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters -

Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, -

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies of the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243-ZA shall not be called in question in any Court;

(b) no election to any Municipality shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. "

Section 11 of the Act 1994 deals with the disqualifications for membersship of a Panchayat or a Municipality, which provides as following:-

"77. Disqualifications for membership of a Panchayat or a Municipalities - A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being a member of a Panchayat or a Municipality, -

(a) to (p) xxx xxx xxx

(q) if he has not paid the arrears of tax imposed by the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be; or

(r) if he is in un-authorized occupation of property belonging to any local authority; or

(s) to (v) xxx xxx xxx"

Section 89(1) of the Act 1994 provides for the grounds on which the election can be declared void which provides as following:-

"59. Grounds for declaring election to be void - (1)

Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), if the Election Tribunal is of the opinion -

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or

(d) xxx xxx xxx

the Election Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void."

7. Furthermore, the nomination papers have to be scrutinized as per the provisions of Section 41 of the Act 1994 which provides as following:-

"47. Scrutiny of nominations -

(1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.

(5) to (7) xxx xxx xxx"

Section 74 of the Act 1994 deals with the election petitions, which reads as under:-

"74. Election petitions - No electio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top