ORDER [ENTITY], C.J.
1. The petitioner is an Advocate and a Journalist. He has filed this writ petition under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as a Public Interest Litigation. He has stated in the writ petition that the respondent No. 6 Shri [ENTITY] contested the election of Lok Sabha from [ENTITY] Constituency in the year 2004 and having succeeded in the said election, took oath as a Member of Lok Sabha as per [SECTION] of the [ACT] and he has not vacated his seat in the Lok Sabha and continues to be a Member of Lok Sabha and yet has become the Chief Minister of the Madhya Pradesh on 29.11.2005 and has also taken oath under [SECTION] of the [ACT] as Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has further stated that the respondent No. 7 Shri [ENTITY] was elected as member of the Legislative Assembly from Budhani Constitutency in the year 2004 and after such election, has taken oath as per [SECTION] of the [ACT] but the respondent No. 7 resigned as Member of the Legislative Assembly (for short 'MLA' ) of Budhani Constituency on 14.2.2006 to accommodate the respondent No. 6 and the respondent No. 6 is now contesting the election from the said Budhani Legislative Assembly Constituency of the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has stated that both respondents No. 6 and 7 have committed breach of their respective duties as Member of Lok Sabha and Member of Legislative Assembly respectively. The petitioner's case is that although under the oath taken by them in the prescribed format in the [SECTION] of the [ACT] they have undertaken to faithfully discharge the duties upon which they were about to enter as such member of Lok Sabha- and as such Member of legislative Assembly of M.P., they have not faithfully discharged their duties and instead have abandoned their seats in their respective Houses. The petitioner has further alleged that in the election of the Lok Sabha from [ENTITY] Constitutency, crores of rupees were spent by the contesting parties as well as the Government of India and that resigning from [ENTITY] Seat of the Lok 'Sabha by the respondent No. 6 will render the entire exercise of election of respondent No. 6 as Member of Lok Sabha totally futile and the expenditure of approximately Rs. ten crores on a parliamentary election would be a waste. The petitioner has further alleged that the mutual arrangement between the respondents No. 6 and 7 by which the respondent No. 7 has vacated his seat of Budhani Constituency of Legislative Assembly of the Madhya Pradesh to accommodate the respondent No. 6 from the said Budhani Constituency of the Legislative Assembly is a mockery of the [ACT]. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to restrain the respondents from permitting the respondent No. 6 to contest the election of Member of Legislative Assembly from Budhani Constituency while continuing to occupy the seat in the Lok Sabha for [ENTITY] and for a direction to the respondents to inflict a heavy pecuniary penalty on the respondent No. 7 for resigning from MLA seat in flagrant violation of his oath under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and also a directions to the respondents No. 6 and 7 to personally bear all the pecuniary losses worth crores of rupees in the by-election.
2- In so far as the first prayer is concerned, the High Court, in exercise of its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT], cannot restrain the respondents from permitting the respondent No. 6 to contest the election of MLA from Budhani Constituency while continuing to occupy the seat of Member of Lok Sabha from [ENTITY] Constituency. This is because of [SECTION] of the [ACT], which provides that 'notwithstanding anything in this [ACT]', no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. The non-obstante clause in [SECTION] 'notwithstanding anything in this [ACT]' will include also [SECTION] of the [ACT]. This has been held by the Supreme Court in several decisions including the decision in The [PRECEDENT]. , relevant portion of which is quoted herein below:
In view of the non-obstante clause contained in [SECTION] of the [ACT], the power of the High Court to entertain a petition questioning an election on whatever grounds under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is taken away. The word 'election' has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions acquired both a wide and narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling, or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll, In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected and it is in this wide sense that the word is used in [SECTION] of the [ACT] in which [SECTION] occurs. In [PRECEDENT] , this Court held that the scheme of [SECTION] of the [ACT] and the Act seems to be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner before a special Tribunal and should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Any other meaning ascribed to the word used in the Article would lead to anomalies, which the [ACT] could not have contemplated, one of them .being any dispute relating to the pre-polling stage. In the above decision, this Court ruled that having regard to the important functions, which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it had always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as earlier as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections were over so that the election proceedings might not be unduly retarded or protracted. Hence, even if there was any ground relating to the non-compliance with the provisions of the [ACT] and the [ACT] on which the validity of any election process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the elections has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with [SECTION] of the [ACT] calling in question the election of the successful candidate within forty five days from the date of election of the return candidate but not earlier than the date of election. This view has been reaffirmed by this Court in [PRECEDENT] and in [PRECEDENT] (supra).
It will be clear from the judgment quoted above that in [PRECEDENT] , the Supreme Court has held that even if there was any ground relating to the non-compliance with the provisions of the [ACT] and the [ACT] on which the validity of any election process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the elections has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with [SECTION] of the [ACT], calling in- question the election of the successful candidate within forty five days from the date of election of the returned candidate but hot earlier than the date of election. In view of aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court right from 1952, this Court in exercise of its power under [SECTION] of the [ACT] cannot restrain the respondents from permitting the respondent No. 6 to contest the election of MLA from Budhani Constituency while continuing to occupy the seat in the Lok Sabha from [ENTITY] Constituency.
3- Coming to 2nd relief to direct the respondents to inflict a heavy pecuniary penalty, we fail to appreciate as to under which law the respondent No. 7 would be liable for such pecuniary penalty for flagrant violation, if any, of his oath taken under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. Unless the law clearly provides for imposition of penalty for any specific conduct, obviously the Court cannot direct the authority to impose such penalty because any such imposition of penalty will be without the authority of law. Mr. [ENTITY], learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision of the [ACT] or any other law under which Member of Legislative Assembly is liable for penalty if he resigns from the seat of Member of Assembly in violation of his oath under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
4- Regarding the 3rd relief to direct the respondents No. 6 to 7 to personally bear the pecuniary loss worth crores of rupees spent in the by-election, the allegations of pecuniary loss worth crores of rupees in the writ petition are vague and not specific. In any case, it is for the legislature to make the law prohibiting resignation from a seat of the Legislative Assembly or a seat of the Lok Sabha or to provide for recovery of losses to the public exchequer, if any, in the event a Member of legislative Assembly or a Member of Lok Sabha resigns from his seat premature before the expiry of his tenure. In absence of any such law made by the Legislature, no direction can possibly be given by this Court to the respondents No. 6 and 7 to personally bear all the pecuniary loss on account of a by-election.
5- For the reasons, this writ petition is summarily dismissed. Since we have dismissed the writ petition summarily, it is not necessary for the petitioner to deposit the security amount along with the writ petition.