Madan Lal 'Dhartipakar' Vs. Neelam
Sanjeeva Reddy & Ors  INSC 61 (9 March 1978)
SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGH
SINGH, JASWANT KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION: 1978 AIR 802 1978 SCR (3) 465 1978
SCC (2) 348
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).
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,  3 S.C.R., 1 Reiterated.
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.
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
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.