O R D E R:

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting application of the petitioner for nomination of MLC Constituency East and West Godavari Graduates constituency as illegal arbitrary In violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to contest in the election by allowing the nomination application”

2. Heard Sri T. Ramakoteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.S. Siva Darshan, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted her nomination pursuant to the notification for conducting election to the Member of A.P. Legislative Council from the East-West Godavari Graduates‟ Constituency. The petitioner filed her nomination with requisite documents and her nomination papers were scrutinized by the respondent on 11.02.2025. After conducting scrutiny, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that, out of the 10 proposed voters as required, the third name/voter is not matching to serial number as assigned at voter list. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Scrutiny Officer has not pointed out the said defect in the check list and passed the application mechanically, as such, the petitioner was under the impression that the application filed by her was in order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, failure of the petitioner to mention the serial number from the voter list of graduate constituency, the same cannot be fatal to the petitioner‟s nomination, inasmuch as the said error is not of a substantial character or mandatory in nature. Therefore, the Scrutiny Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial in nature or mandatory compliance.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assets that, on presentation of a nomination paper, the Returning Officer shall satisfy himself and the names of the electoral roll numbers of the candidates and his/her proposer(s) as entered in the nomination paper are the same as those entered in the electoral roll or if any discrepancy, the third respondent should have permitted the petitioner to make good after the said clerical or technical error in the nomination paper to make valid nomination, even if the said error in the nomination form was found at the time of scrutiny. He submits that the third respondent rejected the application of the petitioner without providing any opportunity to her to satisfy the Returning Officer even though there was no defect in the nomination paper of petitioner in substantial nature.

6. The nomination of the petitioner was rejected erroneously on the ground that the petitioner had furnished 9 valid proposers only. If it is a rectifiable mistake on the part of the petitioner, the third respondent should have allowed the petitioner to rectify the said mistake. But, contrary to the mandatory procedure, the third respondent did not allow the petitioner for such rectification and rejected the nomination of the petitioner which is nothing but an infringement of Fundamental Right Guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India apart from violation of principle of free and fair elections is the foundation of democracy. Hence, the present writ petition.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that, any dispute or rejection of nomination after issuance of election schedule is liable to be resolved by way of Election Petition only and the election process cannot be interdicted, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, [(1952) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94] and this Court cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Artic