PREM NARAYAN YADAV Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged nomination of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 as Alderman in Municipal Corporation, Sagar. This petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation by a resident of Krishnagunj Ward, Sagar. Preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this petition has been raised by respondent Nos. 3 to 8. According to the said respondents, nomination of respondent Nos. 3 to 8 made in exercise of powers under Section 9(1)(c) by the State Government could be challenged only by way of election petition, as prescribed by Section 441 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. Indeed, this preliminary objection is loosely worded. The objection can only be to persuade the Court to decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. The remedy of Article 226 cannot be circumscribed by any statutory provision. Nevertheless, we would examine the purport of Section 441 of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. The same reads thus:--

(2.) On plain language of sub-section (1), it is evident that the nomination made by the State Government under Section 9(1)(c), being under the Act, can be called into question only by way of election petition presented in accordance with the scheme specified in Section 441. This provision is a self contained code. Subsection (2) of Section 441 postulates that the petition filed under Section 441 can be presented on one more of the grounds specified in Section 441B. For that, we may usefully refer to Section 441B, in particular clause (a) thereof, which is applicable to the fact situation of this case. The same reads thus:--

(3.) In our opinion, even though the remedy under Section 226 is very wide and can be invoked by anyone, when the law requires the nomination to be challenged in a particular manner, the Public Interest Litigation cannot be resorted to, to challenge the nomination so made, and in particular, when the Act provides for ground of eligibility or non-qualification as one of the grounds for challenging the nomination made under Section 9(1)(c). Apriori, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation challenging the nomination of respondent Nos. 3 to 8.