W.P.(C) 9075/2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 9075/2009 & C.M. Nos. 6643-6644/2009 ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner-in-person versus DR. BUTA SINGH & OTHERS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. N.N. Aggarwal and Mr. Rohit Gandhi, Advocates for Respondent no. 1. Mr. Y.R. Sharma, Advocate for Respondent no.3 Mr. Gaurav Duggal, Advocate for Respondent UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL O R D E R % 20.05.2009 1. The petitioner in the present writ petition is aggrieved by the fact that the respondent no. 1 had contested the election for Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) in 2009 and respondent no. 2 had contested the election for MLA (for Legislative Assembly) in November, 2008 though they were not entitled to do so. As per the petitioner, respondent nos. 1 & 2 are Chairman and Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes respectively. It is contended that respondent nos. 1 & 2 are holding office of profit and drawing salary from the consolidated fund of India. According to the petitioner, the post of Chairman and Member of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes have not been exempted under Parliament (Prevention of disqualification) Act, 1959 as amended by Act 31 of W.P.(C) 9075/2009 Page 2 of 4 2006 to contest elections without resigning from their official post. It is thus prayed inter-alia in the writ petition that respondent nos. 1 & 2 should be declared as ineligible candidates for contesting the elections to the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assembly respectively as also a writ of Quo Warranto be issued terminating the respondent nos. 1 & 2 from the post of Chairman and Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes respectively. 2. We are unable to agree with the contentions of the petitioner. The eligibility or ineligibility of a candidate to contest elections cannot be the subject matter of a public interest petition. Moreover, the said elections, as per the petitioners own averments, are already over. Appropriate remedies are provided in law to challenge the outcome of an election as also the eligibility of a candidate contesting an election. A public interest litigation is not the appropriate remedy for the said purpose. 3. As held by the Supreme Court in Digvijay Mote Vs. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 175, the conduct of election is in the hands of Election Commission which has the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections vested in it as per Article 324 of the Constitution. This power is not unbridled. Judicial review will still be permissible, over the statutory body exercising its functions affecting public law rights. However, questions of conduct of elections and eligibility of candidates contesting elections cannot be the subject matter of a public interest litigation. It was held by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in S.D. Siddiqui vs. University of Delhi, Apex Decision (Delhi) 290, that if one wishes to challenge an election, he should file an election petition, if that is provided under W.P.(C) 9075/2009 Page 3 of 4 the relevant statute or rules, and if there is no such provision in any statute or rule for election petition, then one has to file a civil suit for this purpose and not a writ petition. No provision of any statute or the Constitution has been shown to us to justify and substantiate the contention that respondent nos. 1 & 2 were not entitled to contest the elections and consequently were now disqualified from holding the post of Chairman and Member of National Commission for Scheduled Castes respectively. 4. It is also relevant to refer to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Devinder Gupta Vs. Union of India, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that: “If we accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a petition for writ of quo warranto can be filed by anyone even though he may have no connection with the appointment of the respondent, then this Court will be flooded with tens of thousands of petitions challenging all kinds of appointments or elections to various posts. Hence, we cannot accept the submission that in a petition for a writ of quo warranto the question of locus standi cannot be raised at all. As already observed above, the Court no doubt takes a broader view of locus standi in a writ of quo warranto as compared to the writs of certiorari and mandamus, but it is not so broad as to permit anyone to file such a writ. The objection of locus standi can be taken even in a writ of quo warranto.” In the present case the petitioner has not been able to show his credentials or how he has the locus to file the present petition. W.P.(C) 9075/2009 Page 4 of 4 5. There is no merit or substance in the writ petition. The counsel for the petitioner has been unable to point out any provision of law to support its contentions. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. All applications stand disposed of as well. CHIEF JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J MAY 20, 2009 vn