(3 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR w.P.No. 1015 12004 / PETITIONER Arup Kumar Gupta, son of Late S.K. Gupta, age 50 years R/o. Kudripara, if Bankimogra, P.O. Bankimogra, District — Korba (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS >1. Union of India, through : Secretary (Law), Ministry of Law, Government of India, New Delhi. Indian National Congress, through : Smt. S. Gandhi, M.P. 8L Leader Opposition, Parliament of India, Resident of 10, Janpath, New Delhi, Pin—110 01 1 Shri Ramadhar Kashyap, M. P. (Rajyasabha), Parliament of India, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and R/o. 7, South Avenue, New Delhi. / RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 25g}22j: OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT MANDAMUS CERTIORARI PROHIBITION AND / OR QUO WARRANTO AND / OR OTHER WRIT / ORDER / DIRECTION IN THE SAME NATURE IN THE CIRCUSMTANCES OF THE CASE. H,‘ " W XI—HC-22 mm,m,mgt C§ WM) Mag? 200V .u... "unnuuu nuunu-uu nun... ‘ 2.08.20 205 , Heard Mr. Amp Kuma Gupta, Petitioner in persan and Mr. S. K‘Beriwal for respond This is a-Public Interes Litigation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has stated in his Writ petition that reapondent No.3—Ramadhar Kashyap be angs to the Naticnal Congress, respondent No.2. Responde t No.3 being a Member of Rajya Sabha (Member of Parliame t) contes’ted Assembly Elections from Akaltara Constituency 0 01.12.2003 on the ticket of the respondent No2 He was clared elected in the Assembly Flections from Akaltara Cons tuency But Without taking oath he submitted his resxgnation from Counoil of the States and preferred to continue his mem ership m Parliament. of .the respondent No.3 in contesting Assembly Election from Akaltara Constituency and thereafter resigning and dec g to continue to be Member of Parliament has caused res ntment amongst the people of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner has annexed to the writpetition excerpts from ‘daily newspa rs such as “Nev Bharat” and wt No. 1. The aforesaid oondu wow} e e i 'n XI—HC-22 mm, W, Faramgt mm- ‘ mmo.nunu.uuunn a1 zoo man mm ’mmw WWW%'W®WA -91» V %a:%u3n%¥r “Tamn Chhattisgarh" to s the resentment in different h w secticns of the society. The etitioner has alleged in the writ petition that the aforesaid sponsored by respondentNoQ 's in defiance of the verdict 6f the ”people and shows that the epondehts No.2 85 3 have no respect for the rule of law an the Constitution of India. The .petitioner has therefore pra ed 'inter alia that appropriate n't of mandamus, certiorari, r prohibition and quo wmant other writ. o d Mr. Arup Kumar Gupta, the petitioner) submitted that it ( will be clear from the provision of Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Representation of the Peoples ct, 195 1' (hereinafter referred to as the Act) that a person can ot be a-Member of two Houses q, ‘L/ either the Parliament or the tate Leg’slature. He submitted that the intention of the L gislature in making the said provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 is that a person can not contest the Assembly lections while he is a Member of a house of Parliament and a person has contested the . Assembly Elections and has g t elected, he should resign from the house of the Parliament. directions 'be given by a XI-HC—22 3am;m,magt m mm..nnuu.unuuu a1 200 ...u..~unuunuuuuuuu "nun...”ununu WWW g. g, WWQ‘wm mm > aswm On :k: reading of Sectioni 68 of the Represcntation uf'the the said Sections relates to vacation of seatS when some pe on is elected to both Houses of Parliament and does not apply the facts of this case. Section 6901‘ the RepreSentation of the eople Act 1951 relates to a case where a person is already a Me ber of’one House of Parliament and is elected to another Hous of Parliament and also is not attracted to the facts. of the pr sent case. Section 70 provides that if a person is elected to mo e than one seat in either House of Parliament or in the House o either House of the Leg’slature of a State, then unless within the prescribed time he resigns from all but one of the sea ‘(by'writing under his hand t addressed to the Speaker or C aiiman, as the case may be, or to such other authority or offio r as may be prescribed), all the seats shall become vacant. H nce, what the said Section 70 provides is that a person can co test an election if he is already a Member of one House but if contests the election and gets elected, he must resign from f the seats held by him in the o o two houses within the stipulate time or else both the seats will p i . become vacant. In the present case, as admitted in the writ People Act, 1951, we find‘ th (mew) XI~HC—22 33:11am, Wm,W mm Wm"...nnuununu In zoo WWW J4 ,’ a WW§WW . aamm petition, although the res‘pondert No.3 was g Member of Rajya Sabha, .he contested the elections from the Assembly Constituency 0f Akaltara butv onafter getting elected, he § submitted his resignation from hellseid Asisembly seat. There . Mas therefore, no violation of Sec ion 70 of the Act. Regarding resentment of people against such practice e of respondent No.3 of contestin from the Assembly Seat and thereafter resiging from the As mbly seat, no provision in the Representation of the People Act 1951 has been brought to our notice which prohibits the respo dent No.3 from doing so. It is true as has been stated by the p ‘tioner in the writ petition that contest for the Assembly Seat y respondent No.3 has led to unnecessary wastage of public expenses in the election of respondent No.3, but this is a in tter which the legislature must consider and it is not for the ourt to direct the respondent i " No.1 to amend the law aCcordin The Representation of th People Act, 1951 is, as per settled law, a Special ‘Act relat to elections to the Assembly i and the Parliament and the id Act provides for specific a annot redress the aforesaid remedies. 'We are afraid we wt .R" o f~ XI-HC—22 'mmw « 5’ giavance of the petitioner i the present writ petition under ' ution of India. Article 226/227 of the Consti With the aforésaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. Sdl— ‘ Sdl- Deshmukh Chief Justice Dilip Raosaheb Judge (team)