KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner submitted nomination paper for election to the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar from Ward No. 27. However, the nomination pa­per of the petitioner was rejected by the Election Officer and consequently his name did not appear in the ballot pa­per. The fifth respondent Raj Pal Singh was declared elected to the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar from Ward No. 27. In such circumstances, the peti­tioner has filed this writ petition pray­ing for the following reliefs :

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, his nomination paper was wrongly and il­legally rejected by the Election Officer. It is contended that while rejecting the nomination paper, the Election Officer did not comply with the provisions con­tained in Sub-Rule 3' of Rule 18 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules 1994. As per said Rule 18(3), the Nirvachan Adhikari (i.e. Election Of­ficer) shall endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or reject­ing the same and if the nomination pa­per is rejected, Shall record in writing brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. The petitioner alleges that though the Election Officer stated that the petitioner's nomination paper was rejected, he did not record any reasons on the nomination paper, as required under Rule 18(3). It is also contended by the petitioner that he was eligible to contest as a candidate from Ward No. 27 to the Zila Panchayat, Haridwar and there was no valid reason to reject his nomination paper.

(3.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he is a person who could legally be a candidate in the election. The con­tention of the petitioner is that, due to the wrong and illegal rejection of his nomination paper, the fifth respondent was unlawfully elected as member of Zila Panchayat, Haridwar from Ward No. 27. The petitioner mainly prays for quashing the result of the election. In other words, the prayer is for a decla­ration that the election of the fifth re­spondent is void due to the illegal re­jection of the petitioner's nomination paper. But the petitioner can file a pe­tition under Rule 4 of the U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settlement of Disputes re­lating to membership) Rules 1994 praying for a declaration that the election of the fifth respondent is void due to the illegal rejection of the. petitioner's nomination paper and the Judge deal­ing with such a petition is competent to grant such a relief. Therefore, the peti­tioner has got a very effective, statutory remedy of filing a petition under Rule .4 of the U.P. Zila Panchayats (Settle­ment of Disputes relating to member­ship) Rules 1994. He has to resort to that remedy before invoking the juris­diction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Admittedly the petitioner has not exhausted the said statutory remedy. He has not estab­lished any extraordinary circumstances justifying the intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution even before exhausting such alternate remedy.