ASOKE CHOWDHURI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for a Rule Nisi is directed against the Election Petition rules, 1967 framed by this Court for the purpose of hearing election petitions. The petitioner's prayers are as follows :

(2.) The grounds on which the petition is based have been set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition. In paragraph 12 it is alleged that the petitioner is concerned with the amendments affected by sections 37, 38, 41, 42, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52 of Act 47 of 1966 (Representation of the People [amendment act] 1966 ). These sections, it is alleged, empower the High Court to try the election petitions and the jurisdiction. previously given to Election Tribunals, was taken away from the Tribunals and given to the High Court in terms of the various sections of the said Act no.47 of 1966.

(3.) In paragraph 13 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner has a right to challenge the election of a returned candidate who is respondent no, 4, but that he is left without a remedy, as he is unable to file the election petition as the Election Petition rules published in the Calcutta Gazette on March 20, 1967, cannot apply inasmuch as in terms of sub-section (2) of section 1 of the said Act No.47 of 1966 the Central Government has not appointed different dates for the coming into operation of the different provisions of the said Act No.47 of 1966. It is alleged that for these reasons the Election petition Rules to be enforced by the high Court in exercising jurisdiction under s.38 of Act No.47 of 1966 are without any authority of law, and the Election petition Rules framed by this court cannot be enforced. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. Arun kumar Dutta. learned Advocate for the petitioner it is necessary to set out sub-section (2) of section 1 of the Representation of the People (Amendment)Act, 1966. This sub-section is as follows: