- (1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the acceptance of the nomination of the third respondent for the 74 Machhlishahar seat which is reserved for the Scheduled Castes.
(2.) ARTICLE 329 (b) of the Constitution provides as follows: "(b) No election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature."
(3.) IT is well settled that the entire process from the issuance of a notification under Section 14 of The Representation of People Act, 1951 to the declaration of the results under Section 66 is comprehended within the expression 'election' in Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Once the election process has begun, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is clearly not warranted. Moreover, under Section 100 (1) (c), an improper rejection of a nomination is a ground on which the election of a returned candidate can be assailed. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. Returning Officer and others1 held that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked to question the election to either House of Parliament and the observations are as follows: - "The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition.";