JOHN MATHAI Vs. FAKKRUDHIN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are presented to question the validity of the rejection of the nomination paper of a candidate for election to the House of the People from the Parliamentary Constituency of Kottayam in the Travancore-Cochin State. The first of these petitions is filed by the proposer of the candidate and the 2nd by the candidate himself. The averments in both the petitions are to the effect that the rejection of the nomination paper by the Returning Officer was made by him while he was acting in a quasi judicial capacity, that the order made by him was without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, and that there is an error in law which is one of the substance on the face of the order. It is not necessary to mention any other aspect at this stage. The prayers in both the petitions are for a writ of certiorari under Art.226 of the Indian Constitution calling for the records of the case from the Returning Officer and quashing the order of rejection and for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Returning Officer to include the petitioners name in the list of valid nominations to be prepared and published by him. The 1st respondent in both these petitions ins the Returning Officer. The remaining three respondents are the rival candidates who also had submitted nomination papers to the Returning Officer which have been accepted by him as valid. The 2nd respondent has, however, since withdrawn his candidature.

(2.) The learned Advocate General of the State appears for the Returning Officer in both these petitions. He is the main contesting respondent. The other respondents are supporting the contentions of the 1st respondent, the 4th respondent being represented by Mr. T.K. Joseph.

(3.) The main objection raised on behalf of the respondent relates to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and deal with these petitions. According to the learned Advocate General, Art.329 of the Constitution read with S.170 of the Representation of the People Act, XLIII of 1951, makes it clear that it is only the Election Tribunal contemplated by the Act aforesaid that can deal with the questions raised in these petitions. The jurisdiction of a Civil Court is expressly taken away by these relevant provisions. According to Art.329: