Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India challenging order dated 07.06.2022 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.

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 07.06.2022, 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 06.02.2022, 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.

3 W.P. No.12982 of 2022

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.

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 Vs. 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 Vs. 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) Vs. 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

4 W.P. No.12982 of 2022

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 Vs. Ras Bihari Raghuvanshi

reported as AIR 1995 MP 245 as also a latest decision in the case of

Kallo Adiwasi (Smt.) Vs. 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