1997 (1) TMI 560 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of nomination papers.
2. Allegations of arbitrariness and political pressure.
3. Compliance with the Cantonments Act and Electoral Rules.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 during the election process.
5. Availability of alternative remedies through election petitions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Nomination Papers:
The petitioners challenged the rejection of their nomination papers for the Cantonment Board election scheduled on 2.2.1997. The petitioners contended that the rejection was arbitrary and motivated by political pressure. The first petitioner's nomination was rejected due to alleged arrears of professional tax, which he claimed to have paid. The second petitioner's nomination was rejected because his name appeared in more than one electoral roll, which he contested as being invalid grounds for rejection. The third petitioner's nomination was rejected on the basis that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste, despite his submission of a community certificate and a related court judgment.

2. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Political Pressure:
The petitioners alleged that the Returning Officer acted arbitrarily and under political influence. The first petitioner claimed that the rejection was a colorable exercise of power influenced by the ruling party, while the second petitioner asserted that the rejection was due to political pressure and was inconsistent with the treatment of other candidates. The third petitioner alleged collusion among respondents to prevent his participation due to political enmity.

3. Compliance with the Cantonments Act and Electoral Rules:
The election process is governed by the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945. The court emphasized that the Act and Rules provide specific provisions for the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, nomination papers, and the resolution of election disputes. The rejection of the first petitioner's nomination was upheld as he failed to provide proof of tax payment. The second petitioner's rejection was validated as his name appeared in multiple electoral rolls, violating Rule 4 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules. The third petitioner's rejection was supported due to insufficient proof of his Scheduled Caste status and the presence of contradictory evidence.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 during the Election Process:
The court reiterated that the term "election" encompasses the entire process from notification to declaration of results. It held that interference under Article 226 during the election process is not warranted unless there is a jurisdictional error, violation of constitutional mandates, or non-compliance with natural justice. The court referenced multiple precedents, including N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, and emphasized that disputes should be resolved through election petitions as provided in the Act and Rules.

5. Availability of Alternative Remedies through Election Petitions:
The court highlighted that the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 1945, provide for election petitions to address grievances related to the rejection of nomination papers. Rule 42 outlines the procedure for filing election petitions, and Rule 47 specifies grounds for declaring an election void, including improper acceptance or refusal of nomination papers. The court held that the petitioners should pursue these remedies rather than seeking intervention through writ petitions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the petitioners cannot participate in the election by intercepting the process at an intermediate stage. It emphasized the availability of alternative remedies through election petitions and directed that any election disputes should be resolved expeditiously by the competent authority. The court also dismissed related miscellaneous petitions and applications for impleading additional parties.