Asit Kumar Roy vs Election Commission Of India & Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 4189 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 29th August, 2011
+                                      W.P.(C) 6314/2011

         ASIT KUMAR ROY                                        ..... Petitioner
                     Through:             Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Manish
                                          Rahav & Mr. Nikhil Singh, Adv.

                                     Versus

    ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR .... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. R.P. Chopra, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may        Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 3rd March, 2010 of the

respondent no.1 Election Commission of India refusing the application of

the petitioner for registration of his political party in the name and style of

"Voters Party" under Section 29A of the Representation of People Act,

1951.

2. The petition also impugns the order dated 12th January, 2011 of the

respondent no.1 registering a political party in the name of "Voters Party"

on the application of the respondent no.2 Shri Ram Krishna Tomer u/S

29A (supra).

3. The petition in so far as challenging the order dated 3rd March, 2010

refusing registration to the petitioner has been preferred after 1½ years

therefrom. Upon it being put to the counsel for the petitioner as to why the

petition should not be dismissed on the ground of laches and acquiescence

alone, the counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was under the

belief that registration under the name of Voters Party having been refused

to petitioner, registration in the same name would not be allowed to the

respondent no.2 also. It is also stated that the petitioner being but a General

Secretary of the unregistered Voters Party, it takes time for the political

party to take a decision to impugn the order.

4. The petitioner has been refused registration for the reason of the

application for registration having been made beyond the period of 30 days

from the date of formation of the party, i.e. the application of the petitioner

being time barred. The respondent no.1 in this regard has referred to the

admission of the petitioner himself, of many candidates in the past having

conducted various elections of Lok Sabha and State Assemblies under the

name of Voters Party and held that the same was indicative of the parties

having been formed much prior to 1st January, 2010 as was claimed in the

application submitted by the petitioner.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent no.1

having refused registration to the petitioner for the reason of the

application having been preferred after 30 days of Voters Party having

come into existence, could not have granted registration to the respondent

no.2. It is argued that if Voters Party had existed as has been believed

while refusing the application of the petitioner, then the application for

registration of the respondent no.2 was also barred by time.

6. In this regard, it may be noted that while the petitioner had applied

for registration on 20th January, 2010, the respondent no.2 had applied on

19th December, 2008.

7. Though the application of the respondent no.2 is earlier in point of

time than that of the petitioner but the counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the application of the petitioner has not been rejected on

this ground and thus the same would be irrelevant.

8. He on the contrary contends that there is arbitrariness in the orders;

that the ground on which the petitioner has been denied registration has not

been considered while granting registration to the respondent no.2.

9. It has been enquired from the counsels as to whether there has to be

any particular form/mode for formation of a political party i.e whether it is

required to be registered as a society or enrolled in any other fashion.

10. Both counsels state that there is no such requirement; even an

association of persons can apply for registration under Section 29A.

11. The respondent no.1 has disbelieved the case of the petitioner, of

Voters Party having been formed on 1st January, 2010 for the reason of the

petitioner himself in the letter dated 11th December, 2009 having stated of

candidates in the elections held prior thereto also, having contested under

the name of Voters Party.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has explained that the name Voters

Party was being used by the National Foundation for Education &

Research (NAFER) a registered society and certain persons believing in

the ideology of NAFER, while contesting elections independently were

using the banner of Voters Party; however subsequently on 1 st January,

2010 a decision was taken by members of NAFER to form a political party

by the name of Voters Party and the application for registration was filed

within 30 days on 20th January, 2010.

13. However, the counsel has not been able to show that it was the claim

of the respondent no.2 also that the Voters Party which he sought to get

registered had existed at any time prior to 30 days before the date of

formation disclosed in the application of the respondent no.2. It is however

contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 is

using the same lineage. However admittedly the association of persons

forming a party, of which registration was sought by the respondent no.2 is

different from the association of persons claiming to be General Secretary

whereof the petitioner had sought registration. Thus merely because the

name Voters Party was stated by the petitioner to have been in use for

more than 30 days prior to his application and in fact since prior to 30 days

of the application of the respondent no.2 also, would not disentitle the

respondent no.2 from making the application and/or would not make the

application of the respondent no.2 to be time barred. The respondent no.1

while considering whether an application under Section 29A for

registration is within time or not, is concerned with the date of formation

of the political party and not with the use of the same name by someone

else. While the petitioner claimed his political party to have been in

existence as a part of NAFER much prior to the date of its formation stated

in the application for registration, the respondent no.2 did not.

14. Otherwise, as far as the inter se dispute between the petitioner and

the respondent no.2 about use of the name "Voters Party" is concerned, the

same are private disputes and would not fall under the Public Law Remedy

to be considered in this petition.

15. There is another aspect of the matter. The application of the

petitioner was rejected 1½ years ago. The petitioner was then aware of the

pendency of the application of the respondent no.2 for registration under

the same name. If the petitioner desired to stop the respondent no.1 from

considering the said application, the petitioner ought to have acted

diligently. The petitioner by the long delay of 1½ years has allowed the

respondent no.1 to grant registration to the respondent no.2. The only error

urged in the order granting registration to the respondent no.2 as aforesaid,

is of the application of the respondent no.2 also being barred by time.

However no merit is found therein. The petitioner, by delay having

allowed another party to be registered in the name sought by the petitioner,

for this reason also is not entitled to impugn the order rejecting his

application.

16. There is thus no merit in the petition; the same is dismissed. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 29, 2011/pp