Rajnesh Jain vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vijay Kumar Shukla, J

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 31.10.2023 (wrongly mentioned in the petition 31/10/2022) passed by the Returning Officer whereby the nomination of the petitioner for contesting the election for the post of Member of legislative assembly in the Vidhan Sabha No.01, Indore, Madhya Pradesh has been rejected.

The petitioner was a candidate to contest the election for the post of Member of legislative assembly from Vidhan Sabha No.01, Indore on behalf of Samajwadi Party. His nomination form has been rejected by the returning officer in reference to the instructions contained in Clause 5 of Chapter No.6 of Election Instructions Book 2023 on the ground that the nomination of the petitioner was not signed by 10 proposers.

Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was a candidate of a political party, and, therefore, as per Part II of the nomination form he was not required to get signed the form by 10 proposers.

Counsel for respondent No.2 to 4 submits that the election form of the petitioner has been rightly rejected as per the provisions of Sec.33 of Representation of People Act 1951 and the instructions issued by the Election Commission of India contained in para 5.6. The relevant instructions contained in para 5.6 of the instructions reads as under:-

"5.6. NUMBER OF PROPOSERS FOR NOMINATION

5.6.1. Under Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the nomination of a candidate at election to the House of the People or a State Legislative Assembly shall be required to be subscribed by-

i. One elector of the constituency, as proposer, if the candidate has been set up either by a recognized National party or by a recognized State party in the State or States in which it is recognized as State party (see Part-I of Forms 2A and 2B).

ii. Ten (10) electors of the constituency, as proposers, if the candidate has been set up by a registered un-recognized political party or if he is an independent candidate (see Part-II of the Forms 2A and 2B).

5.6.2. If a State Party recognized in one state contests election in another state in which it is not so recognized, the nomination of candidate(s) set up by that party in which other state will also be required to be subscribed by ten(10) electors of the constituency, as proposers, even if the Party is granted concession under Para 10 of the Symbol Order to use its reserved symbol."

Counsel for respondent No.2 to 4 further submitted that as per the aforesaid instructions if a candidate files the nomination form of a non recognised national party or state party he is required to get nomination form signed by 10 proposers. The petitioner was a candidate of Samajwadi Party which is not a recognised national party or state party by the Election Commission of India, therefore, the petitioner was under obligation to get his nomination form signed by 10 proposers. Counsel for respondents also raised objection that the petition is not maintainable in view of availability of statutory remedy of election petition under the provisions of Sec.80 of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and upon perusal of the instructions reproduced as herein it is manifest that a person contesting election from non recognised national or state political party has to get signed the nomination form by 10 proposers. The nomination form of the petitioner was not signed by 10 proposers, I do not find any illegality in the rejection of the nomination form. The other factual aspects raised by the petitioner cannot be considered in the writ petition especially when the alternative and efficacious remedy of election petition is available to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.