AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI,SANJAY HARKAULI,J. - (1.) Heard Shri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The following two averments are important for considering the argument that has been advanced as contained in Paras - 16 and 17 of the writ petition:- "16. That the petitioner acting under the directions of Returning Officer submitted nomination papers to an employee of the Returning Officer and was waiting for his turn. 17. That on 31.01.2017 the petitioner at about 4.15 P.M. requested the Returning Officer to take up his nomination paper as being a sugar patient he was required to got for urinal. The Returning Officer became angry and returned back the nomination paper of the petitioner with an endorsement that the same has been presented at 4.15 P.M. and could not be accepted. The order dated 31.01.2017 passed on nomination paper by the Returning Officer along with copy of duly filed nomination paper submitted before the Returning Officer on 31.01.2017 at 2.45 P.M. is enclosed herewith as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will not be entitled to file an election petition and therefore, any bar as explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court viz-a-viz Article - 329 of the Constitution of India read with Section 100 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 will not apply on the facts of the present case as reproduced above, so as to bar the filing of the present writ petition. He, therefore, submits that the return of the documents of nomination will not amount to an improper rejection and consequently, an election petition cannot be filed. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner cannot be rendered remediless and in such a situation, the present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;