P C SHARMA Vs. LALOO PRASAD YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRADEEP Kant, J. This petition by four petitioners, of whom three are the Advocates, have been filed in the nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto asking respondent No. 1, Laloo Prasad Yadav, to explain under which authority he is holding the office of the Minister in the Union Government and also for quashing his appointment as such, after summoning the same from Union of India. A writ of prohibition has also been prayed restraining the respondent No. 1 from functioning as Minister. Later on, by means of an amendment, a prayer for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restrain from giving effect to the provisions of Section 33 and Section 70 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declare the same as unconstitutional, void and inoperative, on the ground that Parliament has no jurisdiction to enact these provisions, has been made.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to the filing of the writ petition, are that after issuance of the notification for holding General Elections of House of the People, the respondent No. 1 file/d his nomination papers from two Lok Sabha constituen cies, namely, Madhepura and Chhapra, both falling in the State of Bihar. THE polling for these seats were held on 26. 4. 04. However, on the basis of some complaints of mass rigging and booth capturing in Chhapra constituency, the Election Commission of India countermanded the election of Chhapra constitu ency but the counting of votes of Madhepura took place and the respondent No. 1 was declared elected by the Election Officer, defeating his nearest rival Sri Sharad Yadav. THE result was notified by the Election Commission of India on 17th May, 2004 in the official Gazette in which respondent No. 1 was declared elected from Madhepura.

(3.) THE argument of the petitioners is that the election of respondent No. 1 from Chhapra constituency is void ab initio, as on the date when he contested the election and when the result was declared, he was already a Member of Parlia ment from Madhepura Lok Sabha seat and was also administered the oath as Member of Parliament from Madhepura seat and was also appointed Minister on the aforesaid ground and was also administered the oath of office and secrecy. Further argument is that since respondent No. 1 resigned his Madhepura seat and his election from Chhapra being void ab initio, he has no right or authority to continue as either Minister or a Member of Parliament from Chhapra constitu ency.