The impugned clauses in the letters of registration were referable to the Second Amendment Order 1989 and within the Election Commission's power and jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

1. These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have ostensibly been instituted in public interest challenging paragraphs 3 of an order issued on 19th September, 1989 by the Election Commission of India (hereinafter referred to as "Election Commission"), whereby it has been observed that Bhartiya Janta Party shall be recognized as a National Party, for which symbol "Lotus" shall be reserved for it in terms of the provisions contained in sub paragraph 2 of paragraph 7 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) (Second Amendment) Order 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Second Amendment Order, 1989).

2. Similar prayer has been made challenging paragraph 3 of another order dated 23rd September, 1989 issued by the Election Commission, whereby it has been observed that Indian National Congress shall be a National Party for which symbol "Hand" shall be reserved.

3. Heard Shri Sheshmani Nath Tripathi, petitioner in person and Shri Vijay Vikram Singh, learned counsel representing the Election Commission.

4. At the outset, we may observe that though this petition has purportedly been filed in "public interest", however, from the pleadings available on record, it can very well be inferred that the petitioner has attempted to espouse a personal cause as well. In this regard, it is noted that in paragraph 6 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner is a primary member of Samajwadi Party in U.P. which is a registered political party under section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and plea of discrimination in issuance of Letters of Registration under section 29A of the Act has been raised by stating that paragraph 3 in the impugned orders dated 19th September, 1989 and 23rd September, 1989 issued by the Election Commission in respect of two political parties, namely, Bhartiya Janta Party and Indian National Congress, it has been provided that these parties shall be National Parties and their election symbols shall also be reserved, however, similar provision is missing in the registration letter issued in respect of Samajwadi Party on 21st May, 1993. Thus a cause on behalf of the Samajwadi Party has also been attempted to be pleaded in this writ petition. In the same breath, however, the petitioner also states in the writ petition that he does not have any personal or private interest in this writ petition in any manner whatsoever and that the petition has been filed in public interest and also that the entire cost of litigation is being borne by the petitioner himself. The petitioner has also stated that he is a public spirited person and that the matter raised herein carries immense importance as such he has filed this petition. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has also been averred by the petitioner that the result of this litigation will not lead to any undue gain to himself or to any one associated with him or any undue loss to any one, body of persons or the State, though the petitioner, admittedly, is a member of another political party, namely, Samajwadi Party.

5. The writ petition also, in our considered opinion, suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. In this regard, it is noticeable that though it has been prayed in the writ petition that paragraph 3 of the letters of recognition dated 19th September, 1989 and 23rd September, 1989 may be quashed and struck down, however, the political parties, which are likely to be affected in case the prayer made in this petition is granted, have not been impleaded as respondents.

6. As noticed above, letters of registration issued by the Election Commission way back in the year 1989 are now being challenged after a lapse of about 32 years offering an explanation that in case of violation of fundamental rights conferred on the citizenary of this country in part III of the Constitution of India, delay is not material. Further explanation which has been sough