WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2006Ravi Kant Khare, (Baba Ji) S/o Sri Rama Kant Khare,

[yogesh saxena]

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 20th 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