1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.4151 OF 2009. 1. VILAS S/O. JIYALAL RAUT, AGED 35 YEARS, OCCU.: SECRETARY, MAHARASHTRA STATE BAHUJAN SAMAJ PARTY, R/O. KUMBHARE NAGAR, GONDIA, TAH. AND DISTT. GONDIA. .. PETITIONER/S. VERSUS 1. THE RETURNING OFFICER, 63, ARJUNI/MORGAON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR, GONDIA, TAH. AND DISTT. GONDIA. 2. THE DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER, DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR, GONDIA, TAH. AND DISTT. GONDIA. .. RESPONDENT/S. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri N.R. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 29, 2009. 1. This petition by a candidate is directed against order passed by Returning Officer, 63, Arjuni / Morgaon Legislative Assembly Constituency on 26th September, 2009 rejecting petitioner’s nomination on the grounds that in “A & B” forms the petitioner was not the main candidate and the nomination was not supported by ten proposers. 2 2. The petitioner claimed that he wanted to contest the election from the said constituency as a substitute for the main candidate Shahare Karamchand Shankarrao who was the candidate set up by Bahujan Samaj Party. Accordingly, Form-B had been submitted showing his name as a substitute candidate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s nomination was not supported by ten proposers. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was a substitute candidate, set up by a political party, his nomination was not required to be supported by ten proposers. He submitted that there can be several possibilities like withdrawal of nomination of the main candidate; the nomination of the main candidate being rejected, the main candidate becoming incapable for contesting the election for any reason and therefore, till the time of withdrawal of the nomination, the petitioner too continued to be a candidate set up by the political party and therefore, his nomination would not have been rejected on the ground that it was not supported by ten proposers, as required under Section 33 of the Representation of People Act. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that whatever may be the objection of the petitioner, in view of the bar enacted in Article 329 of the Constitution such an objection is untenable. She submitted that this position has been made clear as far back as in 1952 in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal, reported at A.I.R. (39) 1952 SC 64, where it has been held that the word “election” includes the whole procedure right from filing of nomination papers till 3 declaration of results and therefore, even the challenge to rejection of nomination has to be raised by appropriate election petition. She pointed out that Section 100 of the Representation of People Act provides the grounds for declaring election to be void and clause (c) of Sub-section (1) refers to a ground that any nomination has been improperly rejected. 5. In view of this, the petition cannot be entertained, hence, it is dismissed. JUDGE RR.