- (1.) HEARD the parties finally.
(2.) ALL these four writ petitions involving similar questions are being disposed of by this common order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the nomination papers of the petitioners have wrongly been rejected and therefore the Deputy Commissioner may be directed to look into the matter in terms of Rule 83 of the Jharkhand State Municipalities Election Rules, 2006 (the Rules for short) and if their grievances are found valid, they may be given a chance to contest the election. It is further submitted that the rule does not provide as to on which grounds the election of the returned candidates can be challenged, as has been provided in Representation of People Act, and therefore petitioners have got no remedy if they wish to challenge the election of the returned candidates after the election is over. Reliance was placed on (2000)8 SCC 216 (sub -paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 32); and (2005)8 SCC 383. 2001 (3) PLJR 677 (paras 19 to 21); and AIR 1980 Patna 97. It was also submitted that after considering the relevant provisions, and the judgments of Supreme Court, the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petitions being WPC No. 917 of 2008 and analogous cases by judgment dated 29th February, 2008, in which the election process itself was challenged on various grounds, including the reservation of seats, and one of the ground of dismissing the writ petition was that the elections which are going to be held after 22 years, should not be disturbed.
(3.) IT appears that Rule 77 of the Rules refers to Section 18A of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2002, which inter alia, provides that no election in Municipality shall be called in question except by an Election Petition filed in case of election to a ward in the Municipality, before the Munsif and in case of election of Chairman in the Municipality before the Sub -Judge under whose jurisdiction, the ward or as the case may be, Municipality is situated. It further appears that the procedures regarding such petition are provided in Rules 78 79, 80, 81, 82 and 84. As per rule 83 the Deputy Commissioner can make recommendations, suo motu. on which, after enquiry the State Election Commission can declare the election of a returned candidate as invalid. This rule also indicates that the election is not to be disturbed. The effect of any interference at this stage when the election is in full swing and is going to be held on 25.3.2008, will amount to interference with the election which is conducted after 22 years in this State. Only because the ground on which the election of returned candidates can be challenged is not mentioned specifically in the rules, the petitioners are not debarred from challenging the election of the returned candidates on the grounds mentioned in Rule 83 and other grounds as may be available to them under the law by filing election petitions. But the election cannot be disturbed on the ground that the grounds of challenging election have not been specified. The aforesaid judgments relied by learned counsel appearing for the respondents fully support their contention. The case (2005)8 SCC 383 relied on behalf of the petitioners regarding scope of judicial review in such matters, is of no help to the petitioners. In the judgment (2000)8 SCC 216 relied by the petitioners itself it was inter alia held that the High Court should not have interfered after the election process was started and all points and the grievance raised before the High Court was fully capable of being taken care of at the trial of the election petition to be filed after the declaration of the results and so the bar of Article 329(b) was attracted (para 35). It is not disputed that Article 329(b) is in pari materia with Article 243ZG of the Constitution of India. For the reasons aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the election in this writ petition, and accordingly it is dismissed. However, no costs. Let copy of this order be given to the parties, as prayed.;