DHARTI PAKAR MADAN LAL AGRAWALversusK.R. NARAYANAN AND ORS.

                    DHARTI PAKAR MADAN LAL AGRAWAL                                     A
                                    v.
                        K.R. NARA YANAN AND ORS.

                               NOVEMBER 24, 1997

          [S.C. AGRAWAL, G.N. RAY, DR. A.S. ANAND, S.P. BHARUCHA                       B
                       AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.]


            Election Law :

-           Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952 :                   c
          Sections 5-B and 5-C as amended by Presidential and Vice Presidential
    Election (Ordinance,) 1997-Validity of-Validity already upheld by 7-Judges
    Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu case-Held, Charan Lal Sahu case
    does not require reconsideration.
                                                                                       D
            Practice and Procedure :
         Composite petition-Maintainability-Petition described as election-
    cum-writ petition-Held, such petition not maintainable-Constitutiort of
    India-Article 32.
          Petitioner filed a composite petition under Article 32 of the Constitution   E
    of India decribing it as Election Petition-cum Writ Petition challenging
    Sections 5-B and 5-C of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections
    Act, 1952 as amended by Presidential and Vice Presidential Election
    (Ordinance), 1997. This Court pointed out to the Petitioner that such
    Composite petition was not maintainable. The Petitioner then prayed this           F
    Court to treat his Petition as Writ petition and that the relief sought by him
    regarding setting aside of the election of Respondent No. 1 may be deleted.

            Dismissing the Petition, this Court

           HELD : I. There is no substance in the submission of the Petitioner
     that the decision of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva             G
    ·Reddy* needs reconsideration. There is thus no merit in the writ petition.
                                                                       (336-H]

            *Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy, (197811SCR1, referred
    to.
                                       335
                                                                                       H
    336                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) No. 622 of l 997.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

           Ashok Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General,
    Soli J. Sorabjee, (C.L. Sahu,) in-person, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, (Dharti Pakar
B   and M.L. Agaiwal,). In-Person, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Ruchi Khurana,
    P.Parmeswaran, Pallav Shishodia, Subrat Birla, N.K. Kaul, Manoj Wad and
    A.M. Khanwilkar for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

c          S.C. AGRA WAL, J. This petition had been filed by the petitioner in
    person. It has been described as Election Petition-cum Writ Petition. During
                                                                                        -
    the course of his submissions before the Court it was pointed out to the
    petitioner that such a composite petition is not maintainable and that the
    petitioner could choose to'have the petition treated as an election petition or
D   a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Petitioner submitted
    that the petition be treated as a writ petition and that the reliefs sought by
    him regarding setting aside of the election of respondent No. I may be
    deleted. As per the said statement of the petitioner this petition has been
    treated as a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and reliefs
    (a), (d) and (h) have been deleted. The petition is thus confined to the
E   challenge to the validity to the provisions of Sections 58 and 5C of the
    Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 [herinafter referred to as
    'the Act'] as amended by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections
    [Amendment] Ordinance, 1997 (No. 13 of 1997], hereinafter referred to a 'the
    Ordinance'. Insofar as the challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C,
    as amended by Act 5 of 1974 and as they stood prior to the promulgation
F   of Ordinance of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-judge bench of this Court in
    Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy, [ 1978] I SCR .I. The validity of
    Ordinance was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 293/97 and 322/
    97 which have been dismissed by order dated June 19, 1997 and July 11, 1997
    respectively. The Ordinance has been replaced by the Presidential and Vice-
G   Presidential Elections (Amendment] Act, 1997 (Act 35of1997]. The validity
    of the said Act was challenged in W.P. (C) No. D 13334/97 and the said writ
    petition was dismissed by order dated October 13, 1997.

          The petitioner has submitted that the decision of this Court Charan Lal
    Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy, [supra] needs reconsideration. We do not
H   find any substabnce in the said submission of the petitioner. There is thus
          D.P.M.L. AGRAWAL v. K.R. NARAYANAN [S.C. AGRAWAL . .I.]              337
     no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner   A
     has also filed an application seeking exemption from payment of court fee. We
     have perused the said application. The said application is allowed.

     R.K.S.                                                    Petition dismissed.




"j
'