AF^ ~ ^f.f.et PETITiONER HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BSi-ASPUR Writ Petition No. 4713 OF 2004 Smt. Shikha Soni, wife of Shri Guiab Soni, aged about 42 years, rssidsnt of Chlrmiri, DistrictKoriya(CG). RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. Versus The Election Commission, State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Elsction Siection Office, Raipur (CG). The Returning Officer, Nagar Patika Nigam, Chirm'ri, Dfetrict Koriya (CG). Smt. Subhashini Singh, wife of Shri Jaikaran Singh, aged about 45 years, residsnt of Kapursingh Dafei, Chirmiri, District Koriya (GG). (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Mr: B.P. Sharma and Mr. K. Sharma, counse! forthe petitioner. Mr. Vinay Harit, Deputy Acfvocate General for the respondent - No.lState. Ms. A. Sisodi^, counsei for the respondent No.2. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal and Mr. Sourabh Sharma, counsei for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon this 24 dayofS »r The petitioner, by Uils petition, seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Returning Officer, whereby nomination paper of the respondent No.3 was accepted for election to the post of Mayor of MunfciDal CorDoration. Chirmiri and Drohibitina the eiection process in view of iftegal acceptance of nomination paper ofthe respondent No.3. 2) Notice was issued on 25-9-2006. However, no interim relief was granted. Thereafter, subsequentiy etection was heid on 19-12-2004 and the /" respondent No.3 was eiected by majority as Mayor of Municipat Corporation, Chirmiri. This oetition has now become infructuous as once the eiection had already taken piace, no chaltenge to the acceptance of nomination of a candidate can be made in writ oetition. !T there is anv chatlenae to the etection proceedings, the same is maintainable byfiling an eiection petition under Articte 243-2G (b) ofthe Constitution of India. '•<, 3) The Hon'bie Supreme Court in the matter of Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of M.P. and others , observed as under: "3.... ln view of the mode of chatienging the electipn by an election petition being prescribed by the M.P. iyiunicipalities Act, it is ciearthatthe election could not be called in question except by an electton pstition as provided under ttiat Act. The bar to sntsrference by courts in eiectorai mattere contained in Articte 243-ZG of the Constitution was apparently qveriooked by the High Court sn aliowing the writ petition. Apart from the bar sunder Article 243-ZG, on settled prinGtpies interfersnce under Articie 226 of the Gonstitution for the purpose of seffing aside election to a municipaiity was not calied for because of the statutory Drovision for eiection petition and aiso the fact thatan earlier writ petition forthe same purpose by a defeated candidate had been dismissed by the High C-ourt." The aforesaid view wasiateron referred with approvat byHon'bie the Supreme Court in the matter of Harnek Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh and others . 4) in the matter of N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. The Returning Officer, Namakka! Constituency, Namakkal, Satera Dist, and others , the Hon'b!e Suoreme Court observed as under: "The taw of elections in india does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election procssdings, one whiie they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Articie 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts having been ' (1998) 9 SCC 594 ' (2005) 8 SCC 3S3 3 AIR 1952(39)5c 64 -3- R!l! ea ^! expressly excluded) "and anofrier after they have been completed by means of an etection petition." 5) in the matter of Manda Jagannath Vs. K.S. Rathnam and others' the Hon'ble Supreme Courtobseroed as under: "12. !n our opinion, whether the retummg officer is justified in rejscting this Form B subraitted bythe first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for ths High Court to decide in the exereis®of its writ jurisdiction. This issue shouid be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petiiion only. 19. In Eieetion Commission of india v. Shivaii (supra) this Court while considering a challenge to the election notification which inciuded certain Zi'ia Parishads within a notified constituency, heid following the judgmsnt in Ponnuswaml (supra) thgt even if there was any ground reiating to the noncompliance with the provisions provisions of the Act and the Constitution on which the vaiidity of any slection process couid be questioned, the person sntersstsd in questioning ths eiection has to wait tili the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with section 81 of the Act calling in question the election ofthe successful candidate." «. 6) Further, in the matter of GurdeepSingh Dhitlon Vs. Satpal and ofhers , the Hon'bte Supreme Court observed as under "5. There is no dispute that the writ petition was movsd only to chalienge the election of tha appeilant to Municipai Councii, Ferozepur City. instead of ohalienging the said etection by an etectiQn petitfon under Section 74 of the Punjab State Eiection Commission Act, 1994 Responclents 2 to 13 took a short cut by filing a writ pstition and invoklng fhe constitutionat jurisdiction of the High Court under ArticSes 226/227 of the Constitution. This petitfon ought not to have been entertained in view of the specific bar ynder Article 243 ZG (b) pf the Constitution of india. The only remedy avaiiab!®to ChaJienge the eiection was by raising an election dispute under the local statute. 7) Appiying weii settted principtesof law as taid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the facts of the present case, wherein this petition was 4JT 2004 (5) SC8 5(2006)iOSCCS16 ;vys::'S» WS9 -Li initially fiied, chatienging acceptance of nomination papers of the respondent No.3, thls petition is not maintainabte on the ground that the election had atreadytaken place. 8) Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequsntly, pending applications, ifany, also stand dismissed. —^—" Sd/- Satish I^.Agnihotri Judge