JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.:—Both these election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) challenge the election of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, as the ninth President of India. On scrutiny of nomination papers made on June 25, 1992 by the Returning Officer, the nomination papers of only four persons, namely, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, Prof. G. G. Swell, Shri Ram Jethmalani and Kaka Joginder Singh alias Dharati Pakad, were found valid and accordingly accepted. Polling was held on July 13, 1992 and result of the election was declared on July 16, 1992 at which Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma was declared elected; and he was sworn in as the ninth President of India on July 25, 1992. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992, had filed his nomination paper at the election, but the same was rejected by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirements for a valid nomination.

2. In both these election petitions certain preliminary objections raised on behalf of the returned candidate, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma as well as the Attorney General of India require to be decided at the threshold. The substance of the preliminary objection in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992 is that it is liable to be rejected as not maintainable primarily on the ground of not being presented by a competent person. namely, any candidate at such election as required by Section 14A read with Section 13(a) of the Act and Order XXXIX, Rule 7 of SC Rules, 1966; and alternately that it does not disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of Election Petition No. 2 of 1992 is that even though it has been presented by a candidate at such election, yet it does not raise any triable issue inasmuch as it does not disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void on any of the permissible grounds contained in Section 18 of the Act.

3. We shall now refer to the material facts relating to each of these election petitions.

Election Petition No. 1 of 1992 :

Petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Sinha alleges that he had obtained the signatures of twenty M. L. As. for contesting the election to the office of President of India between March 30, 1992 and May 28, 1992 and had filed his nomination paper on June 24, 1992. However, on scrutiny of the nomination papers made by the Returning Officer on June 25, 1992, the nomination paper of Mithilesh Kumar Sinha was rejected on the ground that it was not subscribed by at least ten electors as proposers and at least ten electors as seconds as required by Section 5B(1)(a); and also that signatures of some of them were inoperative according to Section 5B(5) being common in one of the nomination paper of another candidate Shri Ram Jethmalani which nomination paper was first delivered to the Returning Officer. The rejection of the nomination paper of Mithilesh Kumar Sinha was made accordingly by the Returning Officer under Section 5E(3)(c) of the Act. The petitioner contends that the rejection of his nomination paper was wrongful which is a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void.

4. The averments in the petition are prolix and vague and some of the contents of the petition are irrelevant and frivolous. However, at the hearing of the petition, we ascertained from the petitioner his exact stand. He indicated that he was a candidate within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the Act since his nomination paper was subscribed by the required number of proposers and seconders and, therefore, his nomination paper was wrongly rejected. He claims that S. 5B(5) treats as valid the nomination paper on which the proposer/seconder subscribes his signature earlier and not the one which is delivered earlier to the Returning Officer. According to the peti