Elections must remain uninterrupted by pre-election challenges, as such grievances can only be adjudicated post-election through an election petition per Article 329(b).

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for directing respondent No.4 to restore his nomination form as a “Valid Form” and to allow him to contest the election or to direct the respondents to frame a fresh election program for Lok Sabha Election for Indore Constituency. Relief has also been sought for directing an enquiry against the entire episode occurred on 29.04.2024 wherein the nomination form of candidates contesting for Lok Sabha Election for Indore Constituency have been withdrawn in an unlawful manner.

2. The facts of the case are that the Election Commission of India notified the General Elections for House of People vide notification dated 16.03.2024 and issued the election program which included District Indore. The last date of filing the nomination form was 25.04.2024. They were to be scrutinized on 26.04.2024 and last date of withdrawal of candidature was 29.04.2024. The petitioner had also submitted his nomination form on 25.04.2024 before respondent No.4 for contesting the election as an independent candidate. As per the petitioner, on 29.04.2024 without giving any information and without his knowledge, his nomination form has been withdrawn by some unknown person by making his forged signatures. It is contended that under Section 37 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 it was obligatory duty of Returning Officer to ensure genuineness of notice of withdrawal but respondent No.4 acted in an arbitrary manner and without permission or consent of the petitioner has allowed his nomination form to be withdrawn.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that his nomination form has been withdrawn by unknown and unauthorized persons and under political pressure and influence of political leaders of ruling party. Respondent No.4 did not ensure genuineness of the withdrawal and allowed some unauthorized person to withdraw the nomination form of the petitioner who was not even present before him.

4. Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has made an application/complaint to the respondents which deserves to be directed to be decided expeditiously. One of such complaint made to the Chief Election Commissioner, Bhopal, respondent No.3 has been brought on record as Annexure P/14. It is contended that since there has been fraud played in the matter it has vitiated the entire process. In this regard reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Sonamati Devi & Ors. Vs. Mahendra Vishwakarma & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 3600 It has been further submitted that since power has been exercised by the authorities arbitrarily therefore interference in this petition is required. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors. Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & another, 2023 SCC Online SC 1140 and also on Kameng Dolo vs. Atum Welly , (2017) 7 SCC 512 to submit that under similar circumstances interference was made by the Apex Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 on advanced notice has opposed the petition and has submitted that the issue as regards withdrawal of the nomination form of the petitioner cannot be enquired into at the present stage when the election process has already commenced and the polling is going to take place on 13.05.2024. It is further submitted that the said issue cannot be called in question by way of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can be called in question only by an election petition presented to the prescribed authority in the manner as provided. Reliance has been pl