9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (7) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, 1971 has rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner for the post of the Mukhiya on the grounds that in 1970 his nomination paper was rejected by the Election Officer and, therefore, he had no right to file nomination paper for the same post and secondly he had not deposited the nomination fee again. Hence this application has been filed to quash the order of the Sub divisional Officer, rejecting his nomination paper. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the two grounds for the rejection of the nomination paper are irrelevant. Firstly, he submitted that if in 1970 his nomination paper was rejected on some ground or the other, no law prohibits him from filing a fresh nomination paper in 1971, when a fresh electi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revious occasion and somehow or the other the election could not be held and fresh nomination papers are called for, and when the candidate has again filed nomination paper for the same post, as he had done on the previous occasion, he is not required to deposit a fresh nomination fee. 4. Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, contended that the petitioner could not be regarded as a candidate, because his nomination paper had been rejected and he could not have contested the election, if the election would have been held. Therefore, the petitioner could not be regarded as a candidate within the meaning of the last proviso to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, and, therefore, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ambiguity in the language. It does not say that if the nomination paper of a candidate had been rejected, he would not get the benefit of the exemption, as is provided under the notification. The ordinary rule of construction of the statute is that if the language is clear, the court will not go to find out the purpose of the legislation. Therefore, in my opinion, the language of this Notification is quite clear. It does not provide for any distinction as to whether the benefit will be enjoyed by a candidate whose nomination paper had been accepted or the candidate whose nomination paper had been rejected, and in the latter case, the candidate will be debarred from enjoying this benefit. The language is plain and clear that if a candidate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the Election Tribunal and this Court cannot grant relief to the petitioner. The powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are wide enough and there could not be any limitation on such powers. Of course, there are some self-imposed limitations, one of such limitations is that if there is an alternative remedy, then surely there will not be any interference. But, in the present case, the declaration of respondent No. 4 as the Mukhiya uncontested was subject to the fact that the order of the Sub divisional Officer was valid one, but if the very basis of the order of the Sub divisional Officer goes away, the declaration ipso facto falls. Secondly, once this Court admitted this application, it cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
