THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Writ Petition No.32382 of 2025 ORDER : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying the Court for issuance of a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of respondent No.6 in rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner stating that the “Part SL.No.812” in the format for issuing Certified Copy of Extract from Electoral Roll (with Photograph) Annexure.54 issued by the Electoral Registration officer 046- Kukatpally Assembly Constituency; and at the time of rejection shown the fresh copy with “Part Sl.No.812” not accepted is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violation of Representation of People Act, 1950; and consequently, to direct the respondents to accept the nomination of petitioner dated 21.10.2025 while receiving the Format for issuing Certified Copy of Extract Form Electoral Roll (with photograph) Annexure 54 issued by the Electoral Registration Officer 046-Kukatpally Assembly Constituency with “Part Sl.No.812” by including the name of petitioner in the final list of 61-Jubilee Hills, Assembly Constituency, Hyderabad District, Telangana.

2. Heard Mr. V. Krishna Swaroop, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The grievance of petitioner herein is that he has filed nomination to the Bye-Election in 61-Jubilee Hills, Assembly Constituency, Hyderabad vide notification dated 13.10.2025. The last date for submission of nominations was 21.10.2025. The petitioner submitted the nomination on 21.10.2025. The Election Officer scrutinized the nomination submitted by the petitioner as also by the other candidates and found the nomination to be improper, and therefore the Election Officer rejected the same on

22.10.2025.

4. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rejection of the nomination of petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ground that an opportunity ought to have been provided to the petitioner to rectify lacunas / defects before rejecting the nomination. He therefore contended that having not granted such an opportunity, the rejection of nomination by the respondents is per se contrary to the Representation of People Act, 1951; and therefore prayed for allowing of the writ petition by setting aside the rejection of nomination of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Omar Farooq, learned counsel for the respondents, contended that the instant Writ Petition at the threshold is not maintainable for the reason that under the Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 80 specifically lays down an embargo on challenging an election except by way of an election petition. He further referred to Section 100 of the Act and stated that improper rejection of the nomination also is a ground available for challenging the rejection of nomination, but it has to be by way of an election petition alone.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side, it is relevant at this juncture to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constitutency, Namakkal, Salem District, AIR 1952 SC 64 wherein a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under, viz., “27. Before concluding, I should refer to an argument which was strenuously pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and which has been reproduced by one of the learned Judges of the High Court in these words :

“It was next contended that if nomination is part election, a dispute as to the validity of nomination i