Court’s Decision
The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the Block Development Officer-cum-Election Officer to accept the petitioner’s nomination for the post of Chairman of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society (PACS), Giridhar Baraon. The Court found that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that the nomination was submitted before the prescribed deadline of 3:00 PM on 10 January 2025. Consequently, the Court held that no “exceptional circumstance” existed to entertain the writ petition bypassing the statutory remedy of an election petition.
“The petitioner has failed to establish that he presented his nomination paper prior to 03:00 PM… the contention that his nomination was refused stands rejected.”
Facts
The petitioner had submitted a writ application seeking several reliefs. Primarily, he prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the concerned Election Officer to accept his nomination paper dated 10 January 2025 to contest the election for the post of Chairman of the Giridhar Baraon PACS. He alleged that the Block Development Officer (BDO), who also functioned as the Election Officer, refused to accept his nomination without any justification and in connivance with another candidate. The petitioner claimed he was present at the venue during the nomination window with all required documents and that this act violated his statutory and constitutional rights, including those under Article 19(1)(a).
He also sought an interim stay on the election process and further prayed for punitive action against the BDO. It was the petitioner’s case that video footage and mandatory recordings, per the guidelines of the Bihar State Cooperative Election Authority, would support his claim. Upon the declaration of the other candidate (respondent) as elected unopposed during the pendency of the writ, the petitioner filed an interlocutory application seeking to challenge that declaration.
Issues
The key legal issue framed by the Court was:
“Whether the petitioner presented his nomination paper on 10.01.2025 prior to 03:00 PM? If yes, then whether the refusal to accept the nomination paper would qualify as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ warranting writ jurisdiction?”
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the nomination process was manipulated to exclude him. He alleged that despite being present at the venue within the prescribed time, the Election Officer wilfully refused to accept his nomination. The petitioner submitted representations to multiple authorities on the same day, complaining about the arbitrary conduct of the Officer. Emphasizing urgency and the constitutional dimensions of his grievance, he argued that the refusal to accept his nomination amounted to a violation of his fundamental and statutory rights.
To counter the objection on maintainability, he relied on several precedents to argue that in “exceptional circumstances,” the writ court can intervene even in election matters. He cited four judgments:
- CWJC No. 13474 of 2009 (dated 03.11.2009)
- LPA No. 1557 of 2009, reported in 2010 (3) PLJR 578 (dated 19.05.2010)
- CWJC No. 13098 of 2024 (dated 05.12.2024)
- 2016 (2) PLJR 253
He submitted that his exclusion from contesting was an “exceptional circumstance,” as it was caused by malafide conduct and not due to any default on his part.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent authorities denied the allegations and asserted that the petitioner had attempted to submit his nomination only after 03:45 PM on 10 January 2025, i.e., well past the notified time limit of 3:00 PM. They referred to a formal report submitted by the BDO to the State Election Authority under letter no. 147 dated 06.02.2025, affirming that the petitioner arrived late.
Further, it was emphasized that once the election had concluded, and a candidate was declared elected unopposed, the only statutory remedy available was to file an election petition. Hence, the present writ petition, filed without exhausting such remedy, was not maintainable.
Analysis of the Law
The Court assessed the legal standard governing judicial intervention in election processes. While reiterating the general rule that elections can be challenged only through an election petition, the Court acknowledged that there may be “exceptional circumstances” where constitutional courts may exercise writ jurisdiction.
However, the petitioner was required to clearly establish that he was within time and was wrongfully denied acceptance of his nomination. The claim that he presented the nomination at 11:00 AM was contradicted by the timeline of his own subsequent emails and complaints, all of which were sent late at night on 10 January or even on 11 January.
Precedent Analysis
The judgments cited by the petitioner affirm the principle that a writ petition may be entertained in exceptional circumstances involving arbitrary exclusion of a candidate. However, the application of such precedents depends on proof of timely presentation and unjust refusal of nomination. Since the petitioner failed to establish timely submission of his nomination, the precedents cited were held inapplicable.
Specifically:
- CWJC No. 13474/2009 and LPA No. 1557/2009 (2010 (3) PLJR 578) emphasized judicial review where there is proof of malafide or illegal rejection of nomination.
- 2016 (2) PLJR 253 reiterated that alternate remedies do not bar writ jurisdiction in case of fundamental rights violations.
- CWJC No. 13098/2024 involved similar allegations but succeeded only because documentary proof existed.
Here, unlike in the cited cases, the petitioner lacked even prima facie proof of presenting his nomination on time.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court critically examined the evidence relied upon by the petitioner. None of the documents or emails substantiated the petitioner’s claim that he approached the Officer before 3:00 PM. On the contrary, emails sent around 10:30 PM and post-midnight on 11 January 2025 undermined his own assertions.
Since the foundational fact—timely presentation of the nomination—was unproved, the Court held that the writ petition must fail. Consequently, it was unnecessary to examine whether the refusal constituted an “exceptional circumstance.”
“There is absolutely no document on record to even, prima facie, establish the contention of the petitioner… the contention that his nomination was refused to be accepted stands rejected.”
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed, both on the ground of lack of evidence and because the election had already concluded, with the respondent declared elected. The Court further dismissed all pending interlocutory applications.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the principle that election-related grievances must generally be pursued through election petitions. Courts will entertain writ petitions only in rare situations, and even then, strict proof of illegality or procedural violation is required. Mere allegations unsupported by documentary proof will not suffice.
Additionally, the ruling reaffirms the procedural sanctity of electoral timelines. Candidates must adhere strictly to notified schedules, and any lapse—even if marginal—may cost them the opportunity to contest.
Summary of Cited Cases
- LPA No. 1557/2009 (2010 (3) PLJR 578): Held that in exceptional circumstances involving arbitrary exclusion from electoral participation, writ jurisdiction may be invoked.
- CWJC No. 13474/2009: Allowed writ where rejection of nomination was patently illegal.
- CWJC No. 13098/2024: Addressed arbitrary rejection with documentary evidence supporting the petitioner.
- 2016 (2) PLJR 253: Discussed the limited exceptions to the general bar on writs in election matters.
These judgments were referred to but distinguished in the present case due to lack of evidence.
FAQs
1. Can writ petitions be filed in election disputes instead of election petitions?
Writ petitions are generally not maintainable in election matters unless there are “exceptional circumstances” such as arbitrary exclusion or clear violation of statutory provisions, which must be supported by strong evidence.
2. What qualifies as an ‘exceptional circumstance’ for invoking writ jurisdiction in elections?
An “exceptional circumstance” involves situations where a candidate is wrongfully denied participation in the election due to illegal or malafide conduct by election officials. However, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner.
3. Is email communication sufficient to prove timely submission of nomination?
No. The timing and content of email communications must clearly corroborate the petitioner’s case. In this case, emails sent late at night did not support the claim of timely submission and were found insufficient.
