PETITIONER: DHARTI PAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. RESPONDENT: SHRI K.R. NARAYANAN & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/1997 BENCH: S.C. AGARWAL, G.N. ROY, A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA, S.RAJENDRA BABU. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray
Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.p. Bharucha
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Rajendra Babu
Ashok Desai, Attornay General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor
General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., (C.L. Sahu,) in-person,
S.K. Bandyopadhyay, (Dharti Pakar and M.L. Agarwal,) Advs.-
In-Person, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Ruchi Khurana,
P.Parmeswaran, Pallav Shishodia, Subrat Birla, N.K. Kaul,
Manoj Wad and A.M. Khanwilkar, Advs. with them for the
appearing parties.
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgement of the Court was delivered:
S.C. Agarwal, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner in
person. It has been described as Election Petition-cum-Writ
Petition. During the course of his submissions before the
Court it was pointed out to the petitioner that such a
composite petition is not maintainable and that the
petitioner could choose to have the petition treated as an
election petition or a writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution. The petitioner submitted that the petition be
treated as a writ petition and that the reliefs sought by
him regarding setting aside of the election of respondent
No. 1 may be deleted. As per the said statement of the
petitioner this petition has been treated as a writ petition
filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and reliefs
(a),(d) and (h) has been deleted. The petition is thus
confined to the Challenge to the validity to the provisions
of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-
Presidential Elections Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as
‘the Act] as amended by Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Elections [Amendment] Ordinance, 1997 [No. 13 of 1997],
hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ordinance.’ Insofar as the
challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C, as amended
by Act 5 of 1974 and as they stood prior to the promulgation
of Ordinance of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-judge bench of
this Court in Charan Lal Sahu vs. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy,
1978 (1) SCR 1. The validity of Ordinance was challenged
before this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.293/97 and 322/97
which have been dismissed by orders dated June 19, 1997 and
July 11,1997 respectively. The Ordinance has been replaced
by the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections
[Amendment] Act, 997 [Act 35 of 1997]. The validity of the
said Act was challenged in W.P. (C) No. D 13334/97 and the
said writ petition was dismissed by order dated October 13,
1997.
The petitioner has submitted that the decision of this
Court Charan Lal Sahu vs. Neelam Sanjeev Reddy [supra] needs
reconsideration. We do not find any substance in the said
submission of the petitioner. There is thus no merit in
this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The
petitioner has also filed an application seeking exemption
from payment of court fee. We have perused the said
application. The said application is allowed.