GURU BACHAN Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under:- " (i) quash and set aside the order dated 10. 11. 2004 passed by respondent rejecting the nomination form of the petitioner; (ii) direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to contest the municipal election in Ward No. 30, Beawer to be held on 24. 11. 2004 and (iii) pass such other orders which may be in the interest of justice and for preventing miscarriage of justice in this case and which may be deemed just and proper in the particular circumstances of this case. "

(2.) BRIEF re'sume' of the case is that after the Municipal Election in the year 2004 was announced the petitioner submitted his nomination form on November 8, 2004. In the affidavit annexed with the nomination form the petitioner clearly stated that the cognizance under Sections 147, 148, 325, 365, 120b and 384 IPC in FIR No. 114/1996 registered with Police Station Kalu District Pali was taken against him and the charge had been framed. The Returning Officer thereupon passed an order dated November 10, 2004 to the effect that under section 26 (i-b) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short `1959 Act') the nomination papers of the petitioner were liable to be rejected. It is against this order that the petitioner has invoked the powers of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) IT is only when the statutory body acts malafidely or exercises arbitrary powers or statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law, the orders of statutory body in Election matters are open to judicial review. In the case on hand the impugned orders appears to have been passed looking to the fact that punishment for a term of more than five years can be imposed under section 325 IPC. Since the petitioner can avail alternative remedy by filing election petition, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order.