SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Jaswant Singh : N.L.Untwalia : P.S.Kailasam : R.S.Sarkaria : V.D.Tulzapurkar
Madan Lal Dhartipakar
Versus
Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy
Case No. : 2 of 1977
Date of Decision : 3/9/78
Advocates Appeared: Gupta S.V. : Mathur O.C. : Nair V.V. : Rao C.S. : Reddy P.Ram : Sachthey R.N.
Elections Act, 1977 - Sections 5B and 13 – Election - This is a petition filed challenging election of president at presidential election - Petitioner filed a nomination paper but that nomination paper was rejected by returning officer because-as he admits-it was not subscribed by any elector as proposer or as seconded - He bad thus admittedly not complied with requirements - Petitioner has however detailed reasons why he could not find any elector to propose or second his nomination papers - Held, When case came up before us today petitioner requested that hearing of petition be postponed till after coming summer vacation - We explained to him that we did not see any sufficient reason to accede to his request adjournment was declined - Petitioner then argued at length urging that petition should be referred to a larger bench for decision - We have fully heard arid consider all that he had to say in this connection and we are not persuaded to accede to his request - Since there was no compliance with requirements petitioner was not a duly nominated candidate within meaning and as such has no locus standi to maintain this petition - Petition is dismissed.
R.S.SARKARIA, J.
(1) THIS is a petition filed by Shri Madan Lal Dhartipatar on 19/08/1977 under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, challenging the election, of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as President of India at the Presidential Election held on 19/07/1977.
(2) THE petitioner filed a nomination paper on 5/07/1977 but that nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer because-as he admits-it was not subscribed by any elector as proposer or as seconder. He bad thus admittedly not complied with the requirements of S. 5B(1) of the Act. The petitioner has, however, detailed reasons why he could not find a,any elector to propose or second his nomination papers.
(3) WHEN the case came up before us today, the petitioner requested that the hearing of the petition be postponed till after the coming Summer Vacation. We explained to him that we did not see any sufficient reason to accede to his request. The adjournment was declined.
(4) THE petitioner then argued at length urging that the petition should be referred to a larger bench for decision. We have fully heard arid considerd all that he had to say in this connection and we are not per- suaded to accede to his request.
(5) SINCE there was no compliance with the requirements of Sec- tion 5B(1) of the Act (No. 31 of 1952), the petitioner was not a duly nominated candidate within the meaning of S. 13 (a) of the Presi- dential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977, and, as such, has no locus standi to maintain this petition: (vide Election Petition No. I of 1974 decided by this court on 14/10/1974).
(6) ACCORDINGLY we dismiss the petition, but without any order as to costs.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.