The relief claimed in this petition is for quashing the order dated 7 April 2014 passed by the Returning Officer by which the nomination paper presented by the petitioner for contesting the 2014 Lok Sabha Elections of Farrukhabad Parliamentary Constituency has been rejected for the reason that the petitioner was not found to be residing at the address mentioned in the nomination form and her name had also been cancelled from the voters list.
Article 329 (b) of the Constitution provides as follows:
"(b) 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."
It is well settled that the entire process from the issuance of a notification under Section 14 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 to the declaration of the results under Section 66 is comprehended within the expression 'election' in Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Once the election process has begun, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted. Moreover, under Section 100 (1) (c), an improper rejection of a nomination is a ground on which the election of a returned candidate can be assailed.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer and others1 held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked to question the election to either House of Parliament and the observations are as follows:-
"The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition."
This decision was followed by the Supreme Court in Manda Jaganath vs. K.S. Rathnam and others2 and the observations of the Supreme Court are thus:-
"12. In our opinion, whether the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only.
13. It is to be seen that under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India there is a specific prohibition against any challenge to an election either to the Houses of Parliament or to the Houses of Legislature of the State except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for in a law made by the appropriate legislature. Parliament has by enacting the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided for such a forum for questioning such elections hence, under Article 329(b) no forum other than such forum constituted under the RP Act can entertain a complaint against any election.
14. The word "election" has been judicially defined by various authorities of this Court to mean any and every act taken by the competent authority after the publication of the election notification.
.....................
23. The next argument of learned counsel for the respondent is that as per the provisions of section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and clause 13 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the omissions found by the Returning Officer in Form B filed by the respondent herein are all curable irregularities and are not defects of substantial nature, calling for rejection of the nomination paper. We think these arguments based on the provisions of the statutes, rules and orders are all arguments which can be addressed in a properly constituted election petition, if need be, and cannot be a ground for setting aside the order of the Returning Officer which is prima facie just and proper, in our opinion."
In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In fact, for these reasons, this Bench had declined to entertain a writ petition bearing no.19028 of 20143 that had been filed to assail an order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper We, therefore, decline to entertain this petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 18.4.2014 GS (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)