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