KAUSHLENDRA PANDEY Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The following two averments are important for considering the argument that has been advanced as contained in Paras - 16 & 17 of the writ petition:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not be entitled to file an election petition and therefore, any bar as explained by the Honourable Apex Court viz-a-viz Art. - 329 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 will not apply on the facts of the present case as reproduced above, so as to bar the filing of the present writ petition. He, therefore, submits that the return of the documents of nomination will not amount to an improper rejection and consequently, an election petition cannot be filed. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and in such a situation, the present writ petition has been preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.