TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a person who had filed a nomination paper in an earlier election, though rejected, remained a candidate for the purpose of the exemption from fresh nomination fee when fresh nominations were invited for the same post; (ii) whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an election remedy after declaration of another person as Mukhiya.
Issue (i): whether a person who had filed a nomination paper in an earlier election, though rejected, remained a candidate for the purpose of the exemption from fresh nomination fee when fresh nominations were invited for the same post.
Analysis: Rule 21(3) treats a person as a candidate once he presents his nomination paper. Read with Rule 21(8) and the notification substituting the proviso, the benefit of non-refundability and exemption from a fresh nomination fee applied where an earlier fee had already been deposited and fresh nominations were called for for the same post. The language of the notification was clear and did not confine the benefit only to candidates whose earlier nomination papers had been accepted. The earlier rejection did not alter the character of the petitioner as a candidate for the limited purpose of the exemption.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the notification and was not required to deposit a fresh nomination fee.
Issue (ii): whether the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of an election remedy after declaration of another person as Mukhiya.
Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy did not bar interference where the foundation of the impugned rejection order was itself unsustainable. Once the rejection of the nomination paper was found invalid, the consequential declaration of the other candidate could not stand on that basis. The constitutional power under Articles 226 and 227 was wide enough to grant relief in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the consequential declaration could be quashed.
Final Conclusion: The rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper was set aside, the consequential declaration of the rival candidate as Mukhiya was quashed, and the election process was directed to proceed according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: A person who has filed a nomination paper is a candidate for the purpose of the election rules, and where the governing notification is clear, its benefit cannot be denied by implying a limitation not found in its language; consequential election declarations founded on an invalid rejection order cannot survive.
TaxTMI 
