ORDER

1. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 7.6.2022 passed by the Returning Officer (Panchayat), Neemuch whereby petitioner's election nomination Form for the post of Member Zila Panchayat, Neemuch has been rejected on the basis of blank left entry in the Form.

3. Petitioner's case is that the election of Panchayat for the State of Madhya Pradesh has been declared by the State Election Commission and thus the election of Gram Panchayat, Manasa, District – Neemuch has also been declared. After the notification of election, petitioner submitted her Form for contesting in the election of Member Zila Gram Panchayat., however, the aforesaid Form was opposed by the respondent No.5 by filing the objection on 7.6.2022, before the Returning Officer on the ground of false information furnished by the petitioner as also the incomplete affidavit filed by the petitioner. Aforesaid objection of the respondent No.5 was replied to by the petitioner and the objection has been decided by the Returning Officer vide impugned order dated 6.2.2022, holding that in Clause 2.10 of para 9 of the Form submitted by the petitioner, which was in respect of sales tax, she has left the columns blank.

4. The case of the petitioner is that leaving the aforesaid entry blank was a genuine human error and ought to have been allowed to be rectified by the Returning Officer by informing the petitioner in writing, which is also the mandate of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission in this behalf, filed as Annexure P/5.

5. In support of his contention, counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court of Gwalior Bench in the case of Pradhuman Verma v. State of M.P. and others reported as 2017 SCC Online MP 2305 wherein this Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be maintainable and judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as in a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law is permissible.

6. Counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India Through Secretary v. Ashok Kumar and others reported as (2000) 8 SCC 216 as also a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) v. Secretary, Governer's Secretariat and others reported as (2020) 6 SCC 548 para 14.

7. Counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not seeking any stay or restrain order in respect of the election, but only wants that she should also be allowed to participate in this election as her nomination Form has been canceled without application of mind, in breach of the guidelines issued by the Election Commission as also the Panchayat Rules.

8. Counsel for the Election Commission, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer. A reply has also been filed. It is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petition has been filed against the rejection of nomination Form, which can only be challenged by way of an election petition as provided under Rule 21 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practice and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

9. In support of his contention, Shri Kamal Airen has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Election Commission v. Ras Bihari Raghuvanshi reported as AIR 1995 MP 245 as also a latest decision in the case of Kallo Adiwasi (Smt.) v. The State Election Commission M.P., Bhopal and others reported as 2016 (1) JLJ 236 wherein this Court has held in no uncertain terms that a writ petition against wrongful rejection of nomination paper is not maintainable and the only remedy is by way of election petition.

10. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11.