The power to scrutinize nominations is vested with the Returning Officer, and the only remedy available under the statute is an Election Petition.

Alok Singh, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari quashing the nomination of respondent no. 4 as a candidate for 05 Haridwar Loksabha Constituency, District Haridwar in view of violation of Section 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and further to declare his candidature as void ab initio.

2. Brief facts, inter alia, of the present case that after notification for Loksabha’s Election, petitioner has filed his nomination from 05 Haridwar Parliamentary Constituency as an independent candidate. Respondent no. 4 also filed his nomination from the same constituency. Petitioner raised objections in the nomination paper of respondent no. 4 that respondent no. 4 has not provided the details of assets and liabilities of his daughter Ms. Shreyashi Nishank; he has not given details of his liability as regards to the Chief Minister’s residence and as to how much amount has been paid; he has left unfilled/concealed information as regards to Form A and Form B; he has submitted provisional no dues with regard to residence at Delhi; the details and amount of case in the bank account of Vidushi Nishank has not been shown. Respondent no. 4 replied to the petitioner’s objection to his nomination. Respondent no. 3 considering the objections raised by the petitioner and reply filed thereto by respondent no. 4, has rejected the objections of the petitioner and accepted the nomination of respondent no. 4. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal with Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 5 raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner submits that after the rejection order passed by the Returning Officer the only remedy left with the petitioner is to approach the High Court, as at this stage, no election petition is maintainable. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by Delhi High Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 2017 (Meenakshi Chandela Vs. State Election Commissioner) dated 30.03.2017 wherein petitioner has challenged the acceptance of nomination of Mr. Manjinder Singh Sirsa by the Returning Officer and learned Delhi High Court was pleased to dismiss the Election Petition as not maintainable, meaning thereby, petitioner can approach the High Court by way of filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He has further placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Resurgence India Vs. Election Commission of India and another reported in 2014 (14) SCC 189 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in the Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is universally recognized. Thus, it is held that right to know about the candidate is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioner has further placed reliance on paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment passed in Resurgence India (supra). Paragraphs 23 and 24 read as under:

“23. For that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a candidate to furnish information relevant on the date of scrutiny. We were appraised that the Election Commission already has a standard draft format for reminding the candidates to file an affidavit as stipulated. We are of the opinion that along with the above, another clause may be inserted for reminding the candidates to fill the blanks with the relevant information thereby conveying the message that no affidavit with blank particulars will be entertained. We reiterate that it is the duty of the Returning Officer to ch