SUKRAMAPAL Vs. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1.

(2.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner seeks quashing of order dated October 28, 2024 passed by the Returning Officer, State Legislative Assembly, for the bye-election 2024 for the post of M.L.A. from 16-Meerapur, Muzaffarnagar.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has objected the filing of this writ petition and stated that the same is not maintainable keeping in mind Article 329 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 80 and Sec. 100 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'). Learned counsel for the respondent submits that Sec. 80 categorically bars an election to be called in question except by way of election petition provided in accordance with the provisions of the Act. He further submits that Sec. 100(1)(C) specifically provides that one of the grounds for declaring election to be void is when a nomination has been improperly rejected. In light of the same he submits that the petitioner has already an alternative efficacious remedy and the challenge made via the route of writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that since the elections are to be held on November 20, 2024 i.e., two days from date, it is not possible now to include the petitioner in the election process for technical reasons. He further relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Resurgence India vs Election Commission of India & Another dated September 13, 2013 reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 344, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that non-filling of any portion of the election form and the affidavit that accompanies the same would make the nomination paper liable to be rejected.