Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: A Bench of G.R. Swaminathan and T. Krishnavalli, JJ. refused to entertain a writ petition that challenged the decision of the Returning Officer whereby the petitioner’s nomination filed for contesting by-election was rejected.

The petitioner was a practicing lawyer wanting to contest the by-election for Ottapidaram reserved constituency to be held on 19-5-2019. His nomination was rejected on the ground that he failed to enclose the extract of electoral roll the original Community Certificate before official scrutiny time.

G. Thalaimutharasu, Advocate for the petitioner seriously faulted the conduct of the Returning Officer in hastily rejecting his nomination. Per contra, J. Padmavathi, Special Government Pleader supported the impugned decision.

The High Court found itself unable to agree with the arguments of the petitioner. Relying on the Supreme Court decisions in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405; and Manda Jaganath v. K.S. Rathnam, (2004) 7 SCC 492, the High Court noted: “Article 329 of the Constitution contains a blanket bar against entertaining such writ petitions.” Referring to Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it was held that if the petitioner’s nomination was improperly rejected, his remedy is to file an election petition before the Election Tribunal, which in this case will be the High Court. It was held further: “The petitioner will have to necessarily wait for the conclusion of the election process and thereafter, he can challenge the same.” Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. [P. Singaravel v. Chief Electoral Officer, WP (MD) No. 11505 of 2019, Order dated 02-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: The Division Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ and Anjana Mishra, J. dismissed an appeal challenging election of a village mukhiya.

Appellant herein had filed an election petition assailing the election of Respondent 3 as mukhiya of a village on the ground of non-disclosure of his assets and liabilities as per the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006. This petition was dismissed and the writ petition challenging Election Commission’s order was also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

Counsel for the appellant contended that nomination paper of Respondent 3 was improperly accepted as he had not filled up details of his assets and liabilities. An affidavit was filed later declaring such assets and liabilities to supplement respondent’s nomination papers but the same was a manipulated document inasmuch as it had been manually stamped while other documents were stamped through a franking machine.

Learned counsel for the respondent objected to the maintainability of election petition for not being verified in accordance with Rule 108 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Rules, 2006. Further, the sole ground raised in the petition was non-disclosure of assets; no challenge was raised in relation to the affidavit filed by the respondent. The subject affidavit was accepted with the nomination papers before the Assistant Returning Officer who scrutinized the same and thereafter declared Respondent 3’s nomination valid. The nomination could not have been declared to be valid in the absence of requisite declaration and therefore there was a valid presumption under the law regarding the existence of this fact.

The Court observed that the casual manner in which petition had been verified was a serious defect. Argument regarding the non-existence of affidavit could not have been appreciated without a petition being verified on the basis of records available. Further, once the defense of supplemental affidavit had been raised, then the burden lay on the election petitioner to dislodge the same by summoning the Assistant Returning Officer.  It was held that the acceptance of affidavit by the Returning Officer without any objection from the appellant or election petitioner provided a clear presumption of fact regarding the validity of nomination of Respondent 3. Lastly, since the issue regarding stamping of an affidavit was not pleaded or advanced either before the learned Single Judge or the Election Tribunal, therefore it could not be raised at this juncture.

In view of the above, the appeal was dismissed for being bereft of merits.[Ram Roop Devi v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 44, Order dated 11-01-2019]