Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
MADAN LAL ’DHARTIPAKAR’
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT09/03/1978
BENCH:
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
BENCH:
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
UNTWALIA, N.L.
SINGH, JASWANT
KAILASAM, P.S.
TULZAPURKAR, V.D.
CITATION:
1978 AIR 802 1978 SCR (3) 465
1978 SCC (2) 348
ACT:
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act (Act 31),
1952, Ss. 5B, 5C, 13(a), 14A-Nomination paper filed without
a Proper or a seconder from amongst elections-Locus standi
to file election petition, only by a ’candidate within the
meaning of S. 13(a).
HEADNOTE:
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 or as seconder as
required by 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
HELD:Since there was no compliance with the requirements of
Section 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 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections
(Amendment) Act, 1977 and, as such, has no locus standi to
maintain the-petition. [466 B-C]
Charan lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 S.C.R., 1
Reiterated.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Election Petition No. 2 of 1977.
In Person : for the Petitioner
P. Rama Reddy, O. C. Mathur, C. S. Rao & A. V. V. Nair for
Respondent No. 1.
S. V. Gupte, Attorney Gen., and R. N. Sachthey for
Respondent No. 3.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J.-This is a petition filed by Shri Madan Lal
’Dhartipakar’ on August 19, 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 July 19. 1977.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
The petitioner filed a nomination paper on July 5, 1977 but
at 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 had thus admittedly not
complied with the requirements of Section 5B(1) of the Act.
The petitioner has, however, detailed reasons why he could
not find any elector to propose or ,second his nomination
papers.
466
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 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(1) of the Act (No. 31 of 1952), the petitioner
was not a duly nominated ’candidate’ within the meaning of
Section 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential
Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977, and, as such, has no locus
standi to maintain this petition; (vide Election 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.
467