PRADEEP KUMAR vs ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision:24th January, 2025 + W.P.(C) 935/2025 PRADEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pushpendu Shukla, Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Ms. Sudha Mishra and Mr. Santosh Panday, Advocates. versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Standing Counsel with Ms. Viyushti Rawat and Mr. Ashish Shukla, Advocates for R-1/ECI. Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Dipesh Sinha and Ms. Aparna Singh Adv for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Advocates also for R-2. Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 4559/2025 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 935/2025 3. This writ petition is preferred on behalf of the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents jointly & severally to accept the nomination paper of the petitioner to contest the election for the ac-23, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 935/2025 Page 1 of 8 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:24.01.2025 20:34:19 Karol Bagh, New Delhi and entered his name in the list of contesting election and take all necessary actions to allow him as an contestant from the AC-23 Karol Bagh, in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 objects to the maintainability of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that there is a Constitutional bar for entertaining the present writ petition and in this context, refers to Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which reads as: “no election to eit