The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of court intervention in the election process, the fulfillment of essential qualifications by candidates, and the availability of remedies for candidates with rejected nomination forms are crucial considerations in election disputes.

ORDER :

VIVEK RUSIA, J.

The appellants (respondents No.2 to 4 in the writ petition) have filed the present writ appeal against order dated 20.6.2022 passed in W.P. No.13057/2022 whereby the learned Writ Court has directed them to allow the writ petitioner to cure the defects in nomination papers within 3 days and to proceed further as per the election program.

The facts of the case, in short, are as under :

1. The State Election Commission has declared the election program for Panchayat elections on 27.5.2022 under the provisions of Rule 31 of M.P. Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “Nirvachan Niyam, 1995” for short). The writ petitioner submitted her Nomination Form for contesting the election for the post of Surpanch for Gram Panchayat, Village Kotada Bujurg, Tehsil Garoth, District Mandsaur under UR Category . Undisputedly Apart from others documents, she was required to submit “No Dues Certificate” issued by the Electricity Company along with Nomination Form . Instead of submitting the No Dues Certificate in her name, she has submitted the No Dues Certificate issued in the name of her husband. The Nomination Form was scrutinized by the Returning Officer on 7.6.2022. However, on the same day, the Returning Officer rejected the nomination form as the petitioner has not submitted the No Dues Certificate issued in her name. The petitioner submitted an objection by way of appeal before the State Election Commission on 10.6.2022 and rushed to this Court by way of the writ petition.

2. The writ petition came up for hearing on 15.6.2022 and the counsel appearing for State Election Commission sought time to file a reply. After filing of the reply, the writ petition was heard finally on 20.6.2022 and the same has been allowed by quashing the order dated 7.6.2022 with a direction to allow the petitioner to cure the defects within 3 days and to proceed further with the election program, on the grounds that the error committed by the petitioner in submitting her nomination form can be said to be technical in nature or a defect which is not substantial for which an opportunity to cure the same ought to have been given by the Returning Officer as provided in Section 35(4) of the Nirvachan Niyam, 1995. Hence the present writ appeal before this Court.

3. The appellants/ State Commission has filed this writ appeal on the ground that the learned Writ Court has wrongly interfered with the election process by issuing a writ. The last date of correction of nomination papers had already been passed; thereafter, election symbols have been allotted to the contesting candidates and they have started campaigning. It is further submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner is having remedy to challenge the election under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 read with Nirvachan Niyam, 1995.

4. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned Addl. Adv. General appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on Rule 38 of M.P. Panchyat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 which provides preparation of a list of contesting candidates by the Returning Officer. The said list shall contain the names in alphabetical order and thereafter allotment of symbols shall be made under Rule 39. It is further submitted that once the election has been notified and the election process has set into motion under Article 243O(b) of the Constitution of India no court should interfere except by way of the Election Petition . He further submits that admittedly the petitioner did not submit the No Dues Certificate issued in her name as she herself was intending to contest the election. The Writ Court has wrongly found the said defect as a technical error in the nomination and wrongly allowed the petitioner with direction to cure the same after the expiry of the date of scrutiny of the nomination form and publication of the final list of contesting candidates.

5. Per contra, Shri Sameer Athawale, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responde