Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1745 (GUJ)

Khemchand Rajaram Koshti v. Union of India

2017-10-10

R.SUBHASH REDDY, VIPUL M.PANCHOLI

body2017
ORDER : R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed with the prayers, which read as under: “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this Writ Petition(PIL); (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate steps against the Political Parties recognized by the respondent No. 1 and 2 to prevent and restrain the respondent No. 4 and 5 for breach and violation of provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and also to take appropriate steps and action by the respondent No. 1 and 2 against erring political parties including that of de-recognition as political parties; (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the action of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in not taking any action against the Political parties including the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein for flagrant violation of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Representation of People Act, 1951; (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue suitable direction/order to respondent No. 1 herein and direct that the respondent No. 1 shall pass appropriate order to restrain the Political Parties including respondent Nos. 4 and 5 herein from contesting the Gujarat Assembly Elections 2017 in State of Gujarat by way of interim relief; (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant such other and further relief that may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted.” 2. Earlier also, the petitioner with identical prayers approached this Court by way of Writ Petition(PIL) No. 176 of 2017, seeking appropriate writ to direct respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein to take appropriate steps against political parties recognized by respondent Nos. 1 to 5 therein to prevent and restrain respondent Nos. 6 and 7 therein and other political parties for breach and violation of foreign contribution as donation. It was also prayed to quash and set aside the action of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for not taking any action against political parties, including respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for violation of the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Representation of People Act, 1951. 3. It was also prayed to quash and set aside the action of respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 for not taking any action against political parties, including respondent Nos. 6 and 7 for violation of the provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Representation of People Act, 1951. 3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 31.8.2015, disposed of the said writ petition at the stage of admission by making the following observations: “2. It is an admitted position that on the subject, High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 131 of 2013 has delivered the judgment and order, copy whereof is produced at Annexure-D and further, against the very decision of the High Court of Delhi, the matter is carried before the Apex Court in the proceedings of SLP (C) No. 18109 of 2014 and the Apex Court is seized with the said proceedings. 3. In view of the aforesaid aspect of pendency of the matter before the Apex Court, we are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage. However, if the petitioner is so desirous, the petitioner may move appropriate proceedings before the Apex Court in the aforesaid SLP.” 4. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 18199 of 2014, which was pending, is dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.11.2016 5. In the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for breach of violation of provisions of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and Representation of People Act, 1951. From the material placed on record, it appears that the petitioner never approached respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by way of representation for redressal of grievance, which is sought to be raised in this petition. Earlier, the petitioner had made representation to the State of Gujarat and State Election Commission only. As the petitioner did not make any effort by way of representation to respondent Nos. 1 and 2, we are of the view that there is no reason to entertain the petition at this stage. Granting liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for redressal of grievance, this petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.