RANI Vs. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has sought the relief of setting aside Annexure P/1 dated 8/1/2015 rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner for election to the post of Sarpanch, Village Bargaon, District Datia, with the further relief for permission to contest the election.

(2.) IT is submitted that the returning officer has improperly rejected the nomination form. It is further submitted that petitioner belongs to Dhobi caste and the same is of Scheduled Caste category as reflected from the caste certificate issued from District Jalon (UP), hence, the aforesaid seat of Sarpanch being reserved for Scheduled Caste, petitioner's nomination could not have been rejected. Smt. Prabal, learned counsel for respondents/Election Commission, raised a preliminary issue that the instant writ petition challenging rejection of nomination paper is misconceived as the election process has already commenced and there is an alternative, efficacious, statutory remedy of filing election petition under Section 122 of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and the grounds raised in this petition are available to the petitioner, as contemplated under Rule 21(1)(c) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Election Petitions, Corrupt Practices and Disqualification For Membership) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995). She relies upon Article 243 -O of the Constitution of India and following the judgments in Hansraj Singh and others v. State of M.P. and others, : 2013 (1) MPLJ 370 and an order dated 29/01/2015 in Writ Petition No. 8123/2014. Article 243 -O of the Constitution of India reads as under: - -

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relies upon following judgments and submits that this Writ Petition is maintainable and rejection of nomination form was illegal: