ORDER:

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. M.V.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned Standing Counsel for the Election Commission of India.

2. Heard on the question of admission.

3. The petitioner is an elector/voter registered in 57- Musheerabad Assembly Segment of 08-Secunderabad Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioner submitted nomination papers for contesting as Member of Parliament from 13-Nalgonda Lok Sabha Constituency in the ensuing General Elections which are scheduled to be held on

13.05.2024 as an independent candidate.

4. The aforesaid nomination paper was scrutinised on 26.04.2024 and the same was rejected, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner is an elector of different constituency and submitted certified extract of electoral roll with the signature of Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, who is not the competent authority and the form submitted by him is not in the format prescribed by the Election Commission of India, which is a substantial defect in the nomination process.

5. The petitioner thereupon has filed this writ petition in which the validity of the order dated 26.04.2024 passed by the Returning Officer has been assailed primarily on the ground that the same is violative of Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1951 Act”).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defect in the nomination paper is not of substantial character and therefore the nomination paper of the petitioner has been rejected in contravention of Section 33(4) of the 1951 Act. It is submitted that the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer is the competent authority under Section 22 of the 1951 Act and the dispute raised in the petition is not an election dispute. It is further submitted that the order rejecting the nomination paper suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and is arbitrary.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India has invited the attention of this Court to the mandate contained in Section 33(5) of the 1951 Act and has submitted that the nomination paper was in violation of the mandate contained in Section 33(5) of the 1951 Act. Attention of this Court has been invited to the nomination paper to point out that the nomination paper does not contain the details and vital particulars have been mentioned as blank. Learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission of India has placed on record the format of the extract of the electoral roll and has submitted that the extract of the electoral roll submitted by the petitioner is in variation with the format. It is also submitted that at the time of scrutiny, neither the petitioner nor his representative were present. It is also submitted that in view of the bar contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India, no interference is called for in this writ petition. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on N.P.Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency1.

8. 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.

9. 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

10. Section 33 of the 1951 Act deals with presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Section 33(5) mandates that where th