Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 659 (PAT)

Dilip Kumar Mishra v. Union of India

2012-04-23

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, T.MEENA KUMARI

body2012
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT T MEENA KUMARI) The present writ petition has been filed in the form of Public Interest Litigation by one Dilip Kumar Mishra, petitioner-in-person to issue writ in the nature of quo warranto or order or direction to remove the Respondent nos 5 to 25 from the membership of the House of the People in view of the decision reported as AIR 1959 Supreme Court 1318 paragraph no 12, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2284 paragraph no 12, AIR 1987 Madras 60 paragraph no 11 and AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1723 paragraph no 25 and further to issue writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction to the Respondent no 2 to declare the seats of the Respondent nos 5 to 25 to be vacant and intimate said vacancy to the Respondent no 4 to hold fresh election to fill that very vacant seats and to the respondent no 4 to hold fresh election to fill those seats and further to the respondent no 1 and 2 not to pay pension etc to the respondent no 5 to 25 on the basis of election from the constituency where they were not elector 2 The petitioner-in-person has argued before us that the respondent nos 5 to 25 are disqualified to vote in the Parliament for the reason that they are not the voters in that Parliamentary Constituency from where they have been declared as elected He has further contended that it is mandatory that a person who stands for the election of Member of Parliament from a particular Constituency should have his name registered in the electoral roll of that Parliamentary Constituency otherwise he or she is debarred for contesting such election from the particular Constituency and he should be declared as “disqualified” to become a Member of Parliament and he or she cannot be allowed to vote in the Parliament He sought a further direction from this Court that they should be declared as disqualified to vote in the Parliament 3 He has also further contested that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S Narayanaswami v G Panneerselvam reported in 1972 SC 2284 paragraph 12 and also in the case of K Venkatachalam, v A Swamickan and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1723 paragraph 25 the Apex Court has held that it is mandatory that further contested that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S Narayanaswami v G Panneerselvam reported in 1972 SC 2284 paragraph 12 and also in the case of K Venkatachalam, v A Swamickan and another reported in AIR 1999 SC 1723 paragraph 25 the Apex Court has held that it is mandatory that a person should be a Member of the particular Legislative Assembly or where he/she contested for such Constituency He relied upon the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in support of his contention with regard to the qualifications for membership of the House of the People He has contested that a person should be an elector in the particular parliamentary constituency otherwise he or she should be declared as disqualified to become a member of Parliament and also to participate in the voting 4 We had also an occasion to go through the pleadings and also the provision of the Representations of People Act, 1951 5 Section 2(d) of the said Act defines that “election” means an election to fill a seat or seats in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a state other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir 6 Section 2(e) of the said Act defines that “elector” in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representations of the People Act, 1950” 7 Section 4 of the said Act under Part II Chapter 1 is quoted herein below:- “4 Qualification for membership of the House of the People:- A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House of the People unless- (a) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes in any State, he is a member of any of the Scheduled Castes, whether of that State or of any other State, and is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency; (b) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than those in the autonomous districts of Assam), he is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes, whether of that State or of any other Castes, whether of that State or of any other State, and is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency; (b) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in any State (other than those in the autonomous districts of Assam), he is a member of any of the Scheduled Tribes, whether of that State or of any other State (excluding the tribal areas of Assam), and is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency; (c) in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the autonomous districts of Assam, he is a member of any of those Scheduled Tribes and is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency in which such seat is reserved or for any other Parliamentary constituency comprising any such autonomous district; [(cc) in the case of the seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the Union territory of the [Lakshadweep], he is a member of any of those Scheduled Tribes and is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency of that Union territory;] [(ccc) in the case of the seat allotted to the State of Sikkim, he is an elector for the Parliamentary constituency for Sikkim;] (d) in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency ” 8 Sub-section (d) of Section 4 of the said Act envisages that “in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency” 9 But, however, so far as qualifications for membership of the House of People is concerned, the petitioner-in–person is not able to show any other provision from the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to support his contention that a person who contesting for the parliamentary constituency should be elector of that parliamentary constituency 10 Per contra, sub-section (d) of Section 4 of the said Act defines that in the case of any other seat, he is an elector for any Parliamentary constituency 11 The above provision makes it very clear that a person who is an elector can stand for any parliamentary constituency It can be said that the person should be an elector and it does not indicate that he should be an elector of that particular constituency Section 4(d) makes it very clear that the person is an elector for any Parliamentary Constituency is qualified to become a member for the House of People 12 The petitioner-in-person is not able to It can be said that the person should be an elector and it does not indicate that he should be an elector of that particular constituency Section 4(d) makes it very clear that the person is an elector for any Parliamentary Constituency is qualified to become a member for the House of People 12 The petitioner-in-person is not able to show any other provisions from the Representations of the People Act, 1951 in support of his contention that respondent nos 5 to 25 should be declared as disqualified under any of the provisions, we are not inclined to interfere in the writ petition 13 Accordingly, the writ application stands dismissed