JAGDISH BHALLA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1999 passed by the returning Officer, 26 Suitanpur Parliamentary Constituency, opposite party No. 2 contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.

( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted that in case any nomination of the candidate has been improperly rejected, the remedy available to him is by filing an election petition and not the writ petition. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraphs 9 and 11 to 13 of the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt. and others, AIR 1952 SC 64, wherein it has been held as under :

" (9) The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm such a position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the representation of the People Act, which as I shall point out later, seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special Tribunal and should not be brought up an intermediate stage before any Court, it seems to me that under the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper consists is the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election In question. Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to prescribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which may be raised under the law to call the election in question, could be urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. Tf the grounds on which an election can be called in question could be raised an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like Article 329 (b) and in setting up a special Tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used In the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them being that conflicting views may be expressed by the High court at the pre-polling stage and by the election Tribunal, which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. "

( 3 ) IN para 11 the Court further observed as under :

"the Representation of People Act. 1951, which was passed by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution, makes detailed provisions in regard to all matters and all stages connected with elections to the various Legislatures in this country. That Act is divided into 11 parts, and it is interesting to see the wide variety of subjects they deal with. Part II deals with the qualifications for membership. Part III deals with the notification of General Elections. Part IV provides for the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections, and Part V makes provisions for the actual conduct of elections and deals with such matters as presentation of nomination papers, requirements of a valid nomination, scrutiny of nominations etc. , and procedure for polling and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputes regarding elections and provides for the manner of presentation of election petitions, the constitution of election Tribunals and the trial of election pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document