By the Court.—This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 25 April 2014 passed by the Returning Officer whereby the objection filed by the petitioner for rejecting the nomination of respondent No. 5 that had been filed for contesting the 74, Machhli Sahar, Parliamentary Constituency in District Jaunpur for the 2014 Lok Sabha Election reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate, has been rejected.

2. An Amendment Application has been filed for adding two more reliefs. The said application has been allowed by order of date. The additional reliefs that have claimed are as follows :

“i. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo Waranto against the respondent No. 5 as is not entitled to hold the membership of Parliament from the reserve seat of 74-Machli Shahar Parliamentary Constituencies of District Jaunpur, which is only meant for scheduled caste category.

ii. to declare the respondent No. 5 as not entitled to continue as member of Parliament from the reserve seat of 74-Machli Shahar Parliamentary Constituencies of District Jaunpur.”

3. The petitioner and respondent No. 5 had submitted their nomination papers as candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner objected to the filing of the nomination paper by respondent No. 5 as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste on the ground that he did not actually belong to the Scheduled Caste. The Returning Officer rejected the objection filed by the petitioner by an order dated 25 April 2014. The Returning Officer found that the Tehsildar, Seelampur had issued a Scheduled Caste certificate in favour of respondent No. 5 on 20 December 2007. Verification was sought and he was informed that a certificate had been issued but what was also stated was that some complaints had been filed regarding the caste of respondent No. 5 and an inquiry was being conducted. The Returning Officer, therefore, concluded that the nomination of respondent No. 5 could not be rejected since an enquiry was only pending and the caste certificate had not been cancelled.

4. Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a show-cause notice dated 21 March 2014 was issued to respondent No. 5 by the Tehsildar, Seelampur requiring him to show-cause as to why the caste certificate issued on 20 December 2007 may not be cancelled. At the same time, respondent No. 5 was also directed to surrender the said certificate and not to use it for any benefit meant for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes. It is, therefore, his submission that the Returning Officer committed an illegality in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner against the acceptance of nomination paper of respondent No. 5. Learned counsel also submitted that though an Election Petition could be filed if the nomination paper of respondent No. 5 had been improperly accepted but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan and another, (1999) 4 SCC 526, this Court can entertain this petition as the nomination paper of respondent No. 5 could not have been accepted under any circumstances in view of the directions contained in the notice dated 21 March 2014 that had been issued to respondent No. 5 by the Tehsildar, Seelampur.

5. Learned A.S.G.I. Has, however, submitted that in view of the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, the Court should decline to entertain this petition as the petitioner could have filed an Election Petition.

6. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.

Article 329 (b) of the Constitution provides as follows:

“(b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.”

It is well-settled that the entire process from the issuance of a notific