BRIJLAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 13404 of 1994 and 13579 of 1994.

(2.) Election under the Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 were announced. Nomination papers were to be filed as per schedule of elections declared. These petitions are being disposed of at motion stage. Nomination papers of the petitioners were rejected. They have approached this Court in these petitions alleging that the nomination papers were wrongly rejected. The actual elections are ordered to be held on 30/09/1994. These petitions cannot be entertained at this stage. As the election process started, it has to continue to its legitimate end. It will be open to the petitioners to challenge the elections in the Election Petition on the ground asserted that their nomination papers were wrongly rejected. Similar view was taken by this Bench in C. W. P. No. 13276 of 1994, Jawahora Ram Sarpanch v. Punjab State etc., decided on 20/09/1994 at the motion stage. In that case, in the election rolls, name of the petitioner was not included and he was thus illegally debarred from contesting the elections as alleged although in the last election, he was duly elected as Sarpanch. While dismissing the petition, it was observed that the petitioner should have approached the competent authority to correct the electoral rolls and this would be done within the time prescribed.

(3.) In the present case, as already stated above, nomination papers were rejected. According to the petitioners, this was done mala fide to deprive the petitioners from contesting the elections, Article 243(o) of the Constitution provides that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State. The word 'election' has to be so interpreted to include the entire process of the election which commences from inviting nomination papers and ends with the declaration of election as held by the Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64. The object of the amendment made in the Constitution and addition of Article 243(o) is to complete the process of election when commences otherwise if at the initial stages, the Courts would interfere in the matter and stay the holding of the elections, it would frustrate the purpose of forming democratic form of Government.