MADAN LAL 'DHARTIPAKAR' v. NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS

465

MADAN LAL 'DHARTIPAKAR' A

v.

NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS.

March 9, 1978

[R. s. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA, .lASWANT SINGH, P. s. K\IL,\SA~I B AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] Presidential and Vice-PrEsiden'tial Elections Act (Act 31), 1952, 'Ss. SB, SC.

l3(a), 14A-Nominatio~ paper filed lvithout a proper or a seconder fro111 an!ongst elf'r:ors-Locus standi to file 'election [Jetition, 011ly by a 'candidate· within the meaning of S. 13(a).

The nomination paper filed by the Petitioner on July 5, 1977 was rejected by the Returning Officer as it was not subscribed by any elector as proposer er as seconder as required lby S. 5 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952. The petitioner challenged the election of the respondent, u/s 14 of the Act.

, Dismissing the petition. the Court

c

l:IELD : Since there \Vas no compliance '\vith the requirements of Section i)

5B(1) of the Act (No. 31 of 1952), the Petitioner was not a duly nomi­ nated 'candidate' within the meaning of S. 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice­ Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977 and, as such, has no locus standi to n1aintain ·th~petition. [466 B-C] Charan I.al Sahu v. 1'leelam Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 S.C.R., 1 Reiterated.

ORIGIN/,L JURISDICTION: Election Petition No. 2 of 1977.

In Perso11 : for the Petitioner

P. Rma Reddy, 0. C. Mathur, C. S. Rao & A. V. V. Nair for Respondent No. 1.

E

S. V. Gupte, Attorney Gen., and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent F No. 3.

~ The Judgment of the Court was deli"ered by SARKARIA, J.-This is a petition filed by Shri" Madan Lal 'Dharti­ pakar' on August 19, 1977 under the Presidential and Vice-Presi-.

dential Election Act, challenging the election •Jf Shri Neelam San­ jeeva Reddy a; President of India at the Presidential Election held on July 19. 1977.

The petitioner filed a nomination paper on July 5, 1977 but that nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer because­ as he admits-it was not subscribed by any elector us proposer or as seconder. He had thus admittedly not complied with the requi­ rements of Section 5B(l) of the Act. The petitioner has, however, detailed reasons why he could not find any elector to propose or ,second his nomination papers.

G

H

____ .;;

466 iUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 3 S.C.R.

...

A 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.

The petitioner then argued at length urging that the petition B should be referred to a larger Bench for decision. We have fully heard and considered 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 the requirements of Section 5B(l) of the Act (No. 31 of 1952), the petitioner was not a duly nominated 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the C Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977, and, as such, has no locus standi to maintain this petition; (vide Elec­ tion Petition No. 1 of 1974 decided by this Court on October 14, 1974).

Accordingly we dismiss the petition, but without any order as to costs.

S.R. Petition dismissed.

•

-

•