Back
1997(10) Supreme 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agarwal -Petitioner
versus
Shri K.R. Narayanan & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 622 of 1997
Decided on 24-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ashok Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, (C.L. Sahu), in-person, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, (Dharti Pakar and M.L. Agarwal,) Advocates-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, Advocates.
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 32-Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 as amended by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997-Sections 5B and 5C-Validity of-Challenged-Challenge to validity of Sections 5B and 5C, as amended by Act 5 of 1974 and as they stood prior to promulgation of Ordinance of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-Judge Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu s case-Validity of Ordinance and the Act has been upheld in writ petitions by orders dated 19-6-1997, 11-7-1997 and 13-10-1997-Petitioner s submission that Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy s case need reconsideration-Dismissed. (Paras 1 & 2)
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, 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) have 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 v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy1. 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, 1997 (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.
2. The petitioner has submitted that the decision of this Court Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva 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.
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner s application seeking exemption from payment of court fee, allowed.
**********
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
