http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DHARTI PAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI K.R. NARAYANAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/11/1997

BENCH: S.C. AGARWAL,  G.N.  ROY,  A.S.  ANAND,  S.P.  BHARUCHA,  S.RAJENDRA BABU.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1997 Present:                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agarwal                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.N. Ray                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Anand                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.p. Bharucha                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.Rajendra Babu Ashok Desai,  Attornay General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Adv., (C.L. Sahu,) in-person, S.K. Bandyopadhyay,  (Dharti Pakar and M.L. Agarwal,) Advs.- 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, Advs.  with  them  for  the appearing parties.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgement of the Court was delivered: S.C. Agarwal, J.      This petition  has 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 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. 1  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) has  been deleted.  The  petition  is  thus confined to  the Challenge to the validity to the provisions of  Sections  5B  and  5C  of  the  Presidential  and  Vice- Presidential Elections Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred to as ’the Act]  as amended  by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections [Amendment]  Ordinance, 1997  [No.  13  of  1997], hereinafter referred  to as  ’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 of Ordinance  of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-judge bench of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

this Court  in Charan  Lal Sahu  vs. Neelam  Sanjeeva Reddy, 1978 (1)  SCR 1.  The validity  of Ordinance  was challenged before this Court in     W.P.(C)   Nos.293/97   and   322/97 which have  been dismissed by orders dated June 19, 1997 and July 11,1997  respectively. The  Ordinance has been replaced by  the   Presidential   and   Vice-Presidential   Elections [Amendment] Act,  997 [Act  35 of 1997]. 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 vs. Neelam Sanjeev Reddy [supra] needs reconsideration. We  do not  find any  substance in the said submission of   the  petitioner. There  is thus  no merit in this writ  petition and  it is  accordingly  dismissed.  The petitioner has  also filed  an application seeking exemption from  payment  of  court  fee.  We  have  perused  the  said application. The said application is allowed.