IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHBAD

BENCH AT LUCKNOW

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION  NO. 2809 OF 2006.

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

District : Raibareilly

Ravi Kant Khare, (Baba Ji) S/o Sri Rama Kant Khare, Journalist/Writer/Publisher and President of Sarva Hitkari  Seva Sansthan (unfegistered Society of elite citizens, scholars, Advocates and Sriters), R/o D. S. – 13, Nirala Nagar, Lucknow – 226 020.

                                                                                    ……….   Ptitioner.

                                                Versus

1.     Union of India through its Secretary of Human Resources Ministry Govt. of India, New Delhi.

2.     Election Commission of India, through chairman, Election Commission of India, New Delhi.

3.     State Election Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow.

4.     Smt. Sonia Gandhi alis Sania Malno of Turin, Italy W/o Late Sri Rajiv Roberto “Gandhi” President of National Congress Party, 10, Jan Path, New Delhi.

Hon’ble Jagdish Bhalla, J

Hon’ble B. B. Agarwal, J

     Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for the respondents.

     There is a race to come in limelight by short cuts method and the present petition is one such example. Bye-election of parliamentary seat at Rai Bareli is  almost at a fag end today. However, at this stage the petitioner has filed a writ petition challenging the nomination of opposite party no. 4 for contesting  the election of Rai Bareli parliamentary seat. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the matter relating to the disqualification of respondent no. 4 pertaining to her adherence and allegiance to the foreign State, namely, Italy. He had also prayed that Union of India be directed to produce the books namely “The Nehru Dynasty” written by Sri K. N. Rao, Reminiscences of “Nehru Age” written by his long time Private Secretary, Sri M. O. Mathai and the book written by his long time Private secretary, Sri M. O. Mathai and the book written by Sri Mohammad Yunus “Persons, Passion and Politics” for the perusal of the court to confirm the authenticity of the Article (Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition) published by the Hindu Writer’s Forum.

     Not only it is a belated petition but the prayer no. 3 has got no relevance with the two others prayers sought for in the writ petition. The subject matter of the present petition is the bye-election of Raibareli Parliamentary seat where the voting has started today in the morning,

     We would like to observe that under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India there is a specific prohibition against any challenge to an election either to the Houses of Parliament or to the Houses of Legislature of the State except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may  be provided for in a law made by the appropriate legislature . The Parliament has by enacting the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided for such a forum for questioning such elections hence, under Article 329 (b) no other than such forum constituted under the R. P. Act can entertain a complaint against any election.

     In N. P. Ponuswami Versus Returning Officer Namakkal constituency, Namakkal and others [AIR 1952 (39) SC 64] (supra) the Hon’ble Surpreme Court held as under :-

     “The law of elections in India does not contemplate that there should be two attacks on matters connected with election proceedings, one which they are going on by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts having been expressly excluded)” and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition.”

     The above view has been relied with approval by the subsequent judgement in M. S. Gill and another us. The Chief Election Commissioner [1978(1) SCC 405]. In Election Commission of India vs. Shivaji; AIR 1998 SC 61 the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a challenge to the election notifications while following  the judgment in Ponnuswami’s case held that even if there was any ground relating to the non-compliance with the provisions of the act and constitution on which the validity of any election process could be question, the person interested in questioning the election has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with Section 81 of the act calling in question the election of the  successful candidate.

     We may add that the question of citizenship of respondent no. 4 was also raised in Election Petition No. 1 of 1999; Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Smt. Sonia Gandhi but the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order  dated 20^th May, 2000.

     In view of the above proposition of law, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

     Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases even then the courts are flooded with a large number of so-called public interest litigations wasting valuable judicial time, which could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases.

     It is a fit case in which we would have imposed exemplary cost but taking note of the fact that the petitioner has become “Babaji” we are not imposing any cost.

08.05.2006          

       Irfan                                                                                                s.d./ Jagdish Bhalla, J

            S.d/ B. B. Agarwal, J