THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT PETITION No.12827 of 2024 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Ms. K.Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India for respondent No.1.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Returning Officer, by which nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a resident of ::2::

Peddapalli District. The petitioner had filed the nomination paper on 22.04.2024 as an independent candidate from Peddapalli Constituency. The nomination paper submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Returning Officer by an order dated 26.04.2024 inter alia on the ground that the petitioner had not annexed the income tax returns for all the five years and Form No.26 has not been filed. The petitioner in this petition has assailed the validity of the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted the nomination form for Peddapalli Parliamentary Constituency on 22.04.2024. However, initially with the nomination form, Form No.26 which comprises of 14 pages was filed. However, the petitioner annexed income tax returns for a period of only one year. Thereafter, on a defect being pointed out, the petitioner filed 3 pages of Form No.26 along with income tax returns on 24.04.2024 which has been duly acknowledged by the Returning Officer. It is therefore submitted that the action of Returning Officer in rejecting ::3::

the nomination paper is arbitrary. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been deprived of his statutory right to contest the election. It is also urged that the provisions of Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1951 Act”) have been violated in as much as the petitioner though not present on the date of scrutiny, was present on the next date, but the office of the Returning Officer was locked. It is therefore urged that the order dated 26.04.2024 be quashed.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Election Commission of India on instructions submitted that admittedly the petitioner filed Form No.26 along with all the 14 pages and annexed the income tax returns of only one year. Thereafter on deficiency being pointed out, the petitioner produced three pages of Form No.26 on 24.04.2024 along with the income tax returns. It is therefore submitted that the Form No.26 was not produced in the entirety in as much as all 14 pages were not presented. Therefore, the nomination paper has rightly been rejected. It is also urged that no interference in this ::4::

writ petition is called for at this stage of the process of election which has already commenced. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency1

7. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the

1951 Act.

8. Article 329 of the Constitution of India deals with bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters. Article 329(b) is extracted below for the facility of reference:

“No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.”

1 (1952) 1 SCC 94

::5::

9. Section 33 of the 1951 Act deals with presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. The relevant extract of Section 33(1) with proviso an