Read Order: Savita v. State of Haryana and Others 

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, June 22, 2022: In a petition assailing the correctness of the order rejecting the nomination papers filed by the petitioner, on the ground of difference in her name as registered in the electoral roll and in her education qualification certificate, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that the law is very clear that in case the High Court is approached with unclean hands, the discretionary relief is not to be exercised. 

The Bench of Justices G S Sandhawalia and Jasjit Singh Bedi held that despite having an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an election petition before the authorized Tribunal, the petitioner contended in her petition that no other alternative or efficacious remedy existed, including the remedy of revision or appeal except to approach the High Court. 

Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, was to the order whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner were rejected. 

Essentially, the nomination papers were rejected keeping in view the clarification received from State Election Commission Haryana, Panchkula stating that the name of the applicant in the electoral Roll was  registered as Smt. Savita, whereas her name in her education qualification certificate was Lalitesh. 

The Court, at the very outset observed from a perusal of Rule 85 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 that if any nomination paper has been improperly rejected, the Tribunal shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. 

Further, the Court observed in such matters that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of filing an election petition before an authorized Tribunal, but unfortunately, this aspect was not mentioned in the petition and rather a categoric averment was made to the effect that there was no appeal/statutory revision which lies against the illegal action of the respondents. 

Similarly, it was noted that it was averred in the petition that there was no other alternative or efficacious remedy including the remedy of revision or appeal except to approach the High Court. 

The present petition is silent about the alternative or efficacious remedy which is available”, observed the Division Bench while adding that the law is very clear that in case the High Court is approached with unclean hands, the discretionary relief is not to be exercised. 

Additionally, the Bench expounded that reliance in regard to the alternative remedy can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & others, 2010 (8) SCC 110.  Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment