LexMANDA JAGANATH versus K.S. RATHNAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MANDAJAGANATH V. K.S. RA THNAM AND ORS. APRIL 16, 2004 B [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] Constitution of India,1950: Articles 226 and 329(b)-Election to Parliament- -Allotment of symbol- C Rejection by Returning Officer of form 'B' submitted by a candidate- Nomination accepted as an independent candidate-Writ petition challenging order of Returning Officer-Maintainability of-Held, the issue should be agitated by aggrieved party in an election petition only and it is not a matter for High Court to decide in exercise .of its writ jurisdiction-Representation D of the People Act,1951-s.JOO(J)(d)(4). Words an<! Phrases: 'Election' as occurring in Representation of the People Act, 1951-Meaning of-Explained Respondent no.1 filed his nomination to contest election to the E Parliament from a Parliamentary constituency. Form 'B' submitted by him was rejected by the Returning Officer as Columns 2 to 7 thereof were left blank with a scratch line indicating scoring off the requirement of the said columns. Nomination of Respondent No. 1 was accepted as an independent Candidate and he was not allotted the symbol reserved for the candidates of the political party of which he claimed to be a candidate. F The order was challenged in a w.rit petition before the High Court, which set aside the order of the Returning Officer holding that the issue relating to allotment of symbol by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of nomination papers was not one of the grounds on which an election petition could be filed under the provisions of the Representation of the G People Act,1951. In the appeal filed before the Supreme Court it was contended for the appellant that in view of the specific bar as laid down under Article 329(b) of the Constitutfon read with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the I-I 204 • MANDA JAGANATH v. K.S. RA THNAM 205 writ petition and directing the Returning Officer to treat the respondent A as a candidate set up by the political party as claimed by him and to allot him the symbol reserved for the candidates of the said party. It was submitted that it was only the Returning Officer who was competent to adjudicate on such issues and the High Court could not have in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution decided the issue. Allowing the appeal, the Court 'B HELD: 1.1. Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting Form B submitted by the first respondent or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue 'C should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only. On facts, the High Court could not have interfered with the decision of the Returning Officer. (211-C) 1.2. Under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India there is a specific prohibition against any challenge to an election either to the D 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. The parliament has, by enacting the Representation of 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 R.P. E Act can entertain a complaint against any election. [211-D-E) N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakka/ Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist., and Ors., AIR (1952) 39 SC 64; Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors., [1978) 1 SCC 405; Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Ors., [1988) 1 SCC 277 and S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Ors., [1988) 1 SCC 572 relied on. Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, [2004) 2 SCC 759, cited. F 2. The word 'election' has been judicially defined by various G authorities of this Court to mean any and every act taken by the competent authority after the publication of the election notification. In the instant case, admittedly process of election to Parliament from the Parliamentary Constituency concerned had already started not only by issuance of the notification by the President of India but also by issuance ofa notification H 206 SUPREME ~OURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A fixing the calendar of events by the Election Commission. It is only pursuant to said notification
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.