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

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 622 of 1997

PETITIONER:

DHARTI PAKAR MADAN LAL AGARWAL

RESPONDENT:

K.R. NARAYANAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24/11/1997

BENCH:

S.C.AGRAWAL & G.N.RAY & A.S.ANAND & S.P.BHARUCHA & S.RAJENDRA BABU

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

Delivered By:

S.C.AGRAWAL

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

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

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

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.