BHOLANATH SRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was heard on 12-2-62 and was dismissed. Detailed reasons for the decision were to be given later. I now proceed to give the reasons.

(2.) The petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the Parliament from the constituency known as No. 57 Allahabad Parliamentary Constituency. He filed his nomination paper for the constituency before the Returning Officer but on an objection being raised the Returning Officer by an order dated 22-1-62 rejected the petitioner's nomination as invalid on the ground that the petitioner had not made the necessary deposit as required by Section 34(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. The notification calling upon all Parliamentary constituencies, including the constituency in question, to elect members was issued under Section 14(2) of Representation of the People Act 1951 and was published; in the Government Gazette dated 13-1-62. The consequential notification appointing the various dates in connection with the election was issued by the Election Commission and published in the Gazette of India dated 13-1-62.

(3.) By the present petition the petitioner seeks to raise two points. He urges in the first place that as there is already a duly constituted Parliament in existence which has not yet been dissolved it is not permissible under the provisions of the constitution to direct the election of a new Parliament and on that account the notifications issued by the President of India and the Election Commission are invalid. His second point is that the provision of Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 which required each candidate who wants to be nominated for a parliamentary constituency to make a deposit of Rs. 500/- by way of security is invalid and ultra vires. The ground that is urged in support of this contention is that the Constitution sets out the qualifications which each candidate for a seat in the Parliament must possess and also prescribes the disqualifications on account of which a member cannot be chosen or remain as a member of the Parliament. He urges that by providing for an additional qualification of making a deposit of Rs. 500/- by way of security Section 34 of the Representation of the People Act really adds a qualification to the various qualifications mentioned in the Constitution and that is not permissible. His case is that as Section 34 was invalid non-compliance with it could not be made a ground for rejecting his nomination paper and that rejection is, therefore, liable to be quashed. He, therefore, prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the notifications issued by the President of India and the Election Commission as well as the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper. He also prays for a writ of prohibition directing the Union of India and the Election Commission not to hold the general elections in pursuance of the notifications abovementioned and also wants a mandamus to be issued to the Returning Officer to declare his nomination to the 57 Allahabad Parliamentary Constituency as valid.