Madan Lal 'Dhartipakar' v. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: R. S. Sarkaria
N. L. Untwalia
Jaswant Singh
P. S. Kailasam
V. D. Tulzapurkar
Judgment Date: 1978-03-09
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Madan Lal Dhartipakar

Respondents

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. Rama Reddy
• O. C. Mathur
• C. S. Rao
• A. V. V. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• S. V. Gupte, Attorney General for India
• R. N. Sachthey

Case Synopsis & Summary

Madan Lal Dhartipakar filed Election Petition No. 2 of 1977 challenging the election of Neelam Sanjiva Reddy as President of India, following the presidential election held on July 19, 1977. Dhartipakar’s nomination paper, filed on July 5, 1977, was rejected by the Returning Officer for not being subscribed by any elector as proposer or seconder, allegedly in breach of Section 5B(1) of Act No. 31 of 1952. He argued explanations for the lack of a proposer/second and contended that he still had locus standi to challenge the result, invoking the broad constitutional questions surrounding presidential elections. He requested postponement of the petition, and sought reference to a larger bench for decision on locus standi and the interpretation of the nomination requirements. The petition, however, was not postponed, and the Court did not accede to a larger-bench reference. The Court held there was non-compliance with Section 5B(1), rendering the petitioner not a duly nominated “candidate” within Section 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977, and thus lacking locus standi to maintain the petition. The Court dismissed the petition, without any order as to costs, citing earlier decisions on locus standi (and reiterating the principle). Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy was cited and reiterated.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 5B(1) of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (Act No. 31 of 1952)Section 13(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977Section 14A (Nomination) of the Act (as referenced)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Locus standi (doctrine)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that non-compliance with Section 5B(1) did not extinguish the petition in light of his reasons for lack of proposer/second and sought to have the matter considered, including a request for postponement and referral to a larger bench on locus standi and nomination requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urged strict compliance with Section 5B(1) and that the petitioner, having no proposer or seconder, was not a duly nominated candidate under Section 13(a), and thus lacked locus standi to maintain the petition; they opposed any enlargement of the bench or postponement.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjiva Reddy	[1978] 3 S.C.R., 1	Positive	The judgment reiterates the locus standi principle and the requirement of proper nomination; it is cited as a precedent reaffirming the rule in this context.
Election Petition No. 1 of 1974	—	Mentioned Only	Referenced as a previous election-petition decision; no detailed citation provided in the text.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

465 A MADAN LAL 'DHARTIPAKAR' _v._ NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY AND ORS. _March_ 9, 1978 ##### [R. s. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA, .lASWANT SINGH, P. s. K\IL,\SA~I B AND V. D. TULZAPURKAR, JJ.] _Presidential_ _and_ _Vice-PrEsiden'tial Elections_ _Act_ _(Act_ 31), 1952, _'Ss. SB, SC._ _l3(a),_ 14A-Nominatio~ _paper filed_ _lvithout_ _a proper or a seconder_ _fro111_ _an!ongst elf'r:ors-Locus standi to_ _file_ _'election_ _[Jetition,_ _011ly_ _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 er as seconder as required lby 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 #### c l:IELD : Since there \Vas no compliance '\vith the requirements of Section i) 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 VicePresidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977 and, as such, has no locus standi to n1aintain ·th~petition. [466 B-C] _Charan I.al Sahu_ v. _1'leelam Sanjeeva Reddy,_ [1978] 3 S.C.R., 1 Reiterated. ORIGIN/,L JURISDICTION: Election Petition No. 2 of 1977. _In_ _Perso11_ : for the Petitioner _P._ _Rma Reddy,_ 0. C. _Mathur,_ C. _S._ _Rao_ & _A._ _V. V._ _Nair_ for Respondent No. 1. E _S._ _V. Gupte, Attorney Gen.,_ and _R._ _N. Sachthey_ for Respondent F No. 3. #### ~ The Judgment of the Court was deli"ered by SARKARIA, J.-This is a petition filed by Shri" Madan Lal 'Dhartipakar' on August 19, 1977 under the Presidential and Vice-Presi-. dential Election Act, challenging the election •Jf Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy a; President of India at the Presidential Election held on July 19. 1977. The petitioner filed a nomination paper on July 5, 1977 but that nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer becauseas he admits-it was not subscribed by any elector us proposer or as seconder. He had thus admittedly not complied with the requirements of Section 5B(l) of the Act. The petitioner has, however, detailed reasons why he could not find any elector to propose or ,second his nomination papers. G H ;; ## ____ 466 iUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 3 S.C.R. ... **A** 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 B 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(l) of the Act (No. 31 of 1952), the petitioner was not a duly nominated 'candidate' within the meaning of Section 13(a) of the C 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._ ##### • # ### •