RACHARLA RAJESH Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Mr. Racharla Rajesh, has challenged the legality of the order dated 26.03.2019, passed by the Returning Officer, whereby the learned Returning Officer, the respondent No.3 has rejected his nomination papers in accordance with Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act).

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was hopeful in standing as an independent candidate in the presently scheduled Lok Sabha Elections, had filed his nomination on 25.03.2019 for the Constituency of Lok Sabha-02, Peddapalle (SC) Parliamentary Constituency. His nomination papers were acknowledged by the Returning Officer. While scrutinizing the nomination papers of the petitioner, the Returning Officer made an endorsement pointing out the objections that, "Form-26 at para No.2 and para No.7(ix) information insufficient in Part-A". Further it was specified that the latest documents should be filed by 11.00 a.m. on the day of scrutiny. Despite the fact that on 26.03.2019, the petitioner went to the office of the Returning Officer for submission of his affidavit, the respondent No.3 refused to receive the same and rejected the nomination of the petitioner holding that "Fresh Affidavit not filed as per requirement and as per notice issued in this regard within prescribed time limit". Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 26.03.2019, whereby his nomination papers have been rejected. Mr. K. Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the endorsement dated 26.03.2019 was in the English language. Since the petitioner is unaware of the language, he could not understand the contents of the endorsement made by the respondent No.3. Furthermore, nomination papers should not be rejected for minor technical or clerical reasons. In fact, the Returning Officer is expected to have a liberal view of the nomination papers. Therefore, the impugned order, rejecting the petitioner's nomination, is legally unsustainable.

(3.) On the other hand, Ms. Akhila Palem, the learned counsel representing Mr. Avinash Desai, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1, has relied on the case of N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist., and Four Others AIR 1952 SC 64 and the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commr.(1978) 1 SCC 405 in order to plead that since rejection of a nomination paper is one of the grounds given under Section 100 of the Act for challenging an election, this Court should not invoke its writ jurisdiction in order to interfere with the election process. According to the learned counsel, once the election calendar is published, the election process cannot be interfered by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction power. Secondly, even if the petitioner has valid grounds for challenging the rejection of his nomination papers, he is free to challenge the entire election result, in an election petition, on the ground that his nomination papers were illegally rejected. Therefore, the learned counsel has questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order, and considered the case laws cited at the Bar.