IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1621 of 2009 (M/S) Rajeev Gupta …Petitioner Versus Union of India & others ...Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Standing Counsel for Union of India/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.3 & 4. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no.5. Dated: 06.10.2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- “1. To summon the complete record pertaining to the case. 2. To issue the writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo Warranto removing respondent no.5 from the seat of Member of Parliament from Uttarakhand Parliamentary Constituency No.5- Haridwar and the office of Union Minister of State being disqualified to occupy the same, and/or, 3. To issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon’ble court may deem fit & proper under the facts & circumstances of the case. 4. To award the cost of the petition to the petitioner”. 2 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is an elector enlisted at the Parliamentary Constituency No.1-Tehri Garhwal. The petitioner and respondent no.5 were the candidates who had contested the election for Parliamentary General Election 2009 from 5-Haridwar Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Uttarakhand. On 21.04.2009 respondent no.5 deposited security amount of Rs.10,000/- in his own name as Harish Chandra Singh Rawat for contesting the General Parliamentary Election 2009 from Parliamentary Constituency No.5-Haridwar. Thereafter on 22.04.2009 respondent no.5 presented his nomination papers and affidavits before the concerned Returning Officer. He made and subscribed oath/affirmation before the Returning Officer according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. On that day respondent no.5 also presented a Request Form before the Returning Officer, Haridwar to verify his personal details like his name, address etc. In that Request Form respondent no.5 mentioned his name as Harish Chandra Singh Rawat. Respondent no.5 was enlisted in the electoral roll as Harish Chandra Singh Rawat. The political party of respondent no.5 also issued Form B to him in the same name by declaring him as authorised candidate of the party. Due to this reason the Assistant Returning Officer, Haridwar mentioned the name of respondent no.5 as Harish Chandra Singh Rawat in Form 3A (regarding information and nomination) but on 16.05.2009 the Returning Officer, Haridwar Parliamentary Constituency provided a certificate to respondent no.5 in Form 21C (declaration of result of election under section 66 of 3 Representation of People Act, 1951) in the name of Harish Rawat. He also delivered the certificate to respondent no.5 in the name of Harish Rawat and not in the name of Harish Chandra Singh Rawat. Even after the issuance of certificate in the name of Harish Rawat respondent no.5 did not take any step to correct his name in Form 21C and has further submitted the said certificate to the Secretary of Lok Sabha. He also made and subscribed the oath under the provisions of Article 75 and Article 99 of Constitution of India for Office of Minister in the name of Harish Rawat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before the Court that the law of the land does not permit anybody to use short name or nick name for official purpose and in view of this fact certificate issued to the petitioner by the Returning Officer declaring him elected as Member of Parliament is illegal and unconstitutional. He also argued that since the oath made and subscribed by respondent no.5 as Union Minister has been made and subscribed in the wrong name, it cannot be said that same was in accordance with law and as such respondent no.5 is disqualified from holding the post of Member of Parliament. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 on the other hand submitted that the election of respondent no.5 has already been challenged by the petitioner in Election Petition No.01/2009 before this Court, the petition is not maintainable. 4 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, this Court is of the view that writ petition for removing respondent no.5 from the seat of Member of Parliament is not maintainable. Only remedy available to the petitioner is election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which he has already availed by filing Election Petition No.01/2009 before this Court. It is open for the petitioner to pursue the same. Though the petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that respondent no.5 did not make and subscribe oath in his original name but no documentary evidence has been annexed in support of this plea. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 6. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist, J.) 06.10.2009 Arti 5