By the Court.—The petition invoking the jurisdiction in public interest seeks two reliefs in regard to the law pertaining to elections to Parliament and the State legislature. The first relief is in respect of Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (Rules of 1961) under which a candidate to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given, is to be declared to be elected under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act of 1951). The petitioner seeks a mandamus by this Court to refrain from giving effect to the expression “to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given”.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1951 contain no provision under which a candidate with the largest number of votes is to be declared to be elected. Section 14 provides for a notification of a general election to the House of the People. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 empowers the President by notification to call upon all Parliamentary constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Act on such dates as may be recommended by the Election Commission. A similar provision is contained in Section 15 in relation to the State Legislative Assembly.

3. Rule 64 adopts the first past the post principle since a candidate with the largest number of valid votes is to be declared as elected. The petitioner has not challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 64. But, technicalities apart, there is no reasonable basis for this Court to come to the conclusion that the provision is ultra vires. The manner in which elections have to be held and results computed and declared is a matter of legislative policy. Rule 64 provides an acceptable mode for declaration of results in a democracy by postulating that a candidate with the largest number of valid votes would be declared to be elected. This does not either infringe the provisions of the parent legislation or for that matter of the Constitution. Hence we see no substance in the challenge.

4. The petitioner has also challenged the validity of Section 33 (7) of the Act of 1951. Under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 33 (7), a person cannot be nominated as a candidate for an election for more than two constituencies at a general election to the House of the People or, as the case may be, the Legislative Assembly of the State.

Article 101 of the Constitution provides as follows:

“101. Vacation of seats.—(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.

(2) No person shall be a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, and if a person is chosen a member both of Parliament and of a House of the Legislature of a State, then, at the expiration of such period as may be specified in rules made by the President, that person’s seat in Parliament shall become vacant, unless he has previously resigned his seat in the Legislature of the State.

(3) If a member of either House of Parliament—

(a) becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) or clause (2) of Article 102, or

(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the Chairman or the Speaker, as the as may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be,

his seat shall thereupon become vacant:

Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Chairman or the Speaker, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.

(4) If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant:

Provided that in comp