The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a nomination form based on a technical defect that is not of a substantial character is not permissible under the law, and the petitioner should be allowed to cure the defect.

ORDER : – 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 Village Kotada Bujurg, Tehsil Garoth, District Mandsaur whereby the petitioner’s Nomination Form for the unreserved woman post of Sarpanch for Gram Panchayat Kotada Bujurg, Janpad Panchayat Garoth on the ground that the no dues certificate in respect of the electricity bill was not of the petitioner as the electricity bill is in the name of the husband of the petitioner and the no dues certificate has been issued by the electricity company in the name of the petitioner’s husband Dinesh Kumar Patidar. It is submitted that it was only a technical objection which ought to have been allowed to be cured by the Returning officer.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition has been filed also on the ground that initially the petitioner’s nomination form was accepted by the Returning Officer, which is apparent from the document Annexure P/4 wherein the Returning Officer has clearly stated that the Form of the petitioner being in accordance with law is accepted on 7-6-2022, however, the aforesaid Form has been rejected on the same day holding that the no dues certificate is not in the name of the petitioner. The aforesaid rejection of Nomination form after accepting is not permissible under any law. Counsel has submitted that none of the Rules or Guidelines prescribed by the Election Commission provides for cancellation of Nomination Form once it is accepted and even otherwise Sub-section (4) of section 35 of The Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 provides that the Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of mere clerical or printing error or any defect which is not of a substantial character. Counsel has also relied upon Rule 34 of the said Niyam and submitted that the petitioner being a rustic woman was not aware of the technicalities of the nomination paper and even on the Gram Panchayat Board, in the list of the requisite documents sought from a candidate, it was simply stated that a document relating to no dues of electricity bill shall also be produced and thus, as the petitioner has no electricity connection in her name and the electricity bill is issued in the name of petitioner’s husband, the electricity company has given no dues certificate in the name of petitioner’s husband. It is submitted that even that defect was curable in nature even according to the reply filed by the respondent/Election Commission. Thus, it is submitted that looking to the Rules of Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 the petitioner ought to have been allowed to cure the defect.

4. Counsel for the Election Commission, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer. A reply has been filed. It is submitted that no case for interference is made out as it was clearly provided that as per the Guidelines issued on 27-5-2022 the no dues certificate ought to have been obtained in respect of the candidate only. It is also submitted that 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 Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practice and Disqualification for Membership) Rules, 1995.

5. 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 vs. Ras Bihari Raghuvanshi, reported as AIR 1995 MP 245 as also a latest decision in the case of Kallo Adiwasi (Smt.) vs. 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.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused