Kamleshwar Nath, J. - (1.) THIS is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (For short, the Act) for a declaration that the election of Respondent 'Sri Rajiv Gandhi to the Lok Sabha (House of People) from 25 Amethi Parliamentary Constituency, District Sultanpur, is void.
(2.) THE Petitioner, Bhagwati Prasad Dixit "Ghorewala" was one of the several candidates for the purpose. In the result declared on 29 -12 -84, after the poll, the Respondent was declared elected by a margin of more than three lakhs votes against his close rival Mrs. Maneka Gandhi. The Petitioner, amongst others, consequently lost the election. The validity of the election has been challenged an the following grounds: 1. The Respondent married an Italian lady and acquired properties in his name as well as in the name of his wife Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in Italy, in consequence of which the Respondent would be deemed to have ceased to be an Indian citizen under Section y of the Citizenship Act, that according to the Petitioner constitutes a disqualification under Article 102(1)(d) of the Constitution of India. These allegations were set out in paras 7 to 13 of the petition. 2. At the time when the election was held, the Respondent continued to be a member of the Parliament which, till then, had not been dissolved and since he was drawing his salary, he held an office of profit within the meaning of Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution and, therefore was disqualified from being chosen as a member of the Parliament. These facts are stated in paras 14 to 16 of the election petition. 3. The appointment of Sri R.K. Trivedi as Chief Election Commissioner of India was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as laid down in Article 324 of the Constitution. According to the Petitioner a person to be appointed as Chief Election Commissioner should be qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, while Sri R.K. Trivedi belonged to the cadre of I.A.S. only. The notification of the election under Section 14 of the Act and all subsequent proceedings of the election, without dissolving the Parliament, thus was contrary to law and the entire election was vitiated. These facts are set out in the petition in Paras 17 to 29. The first and second grounds fall under Section 109(1)(a) of the Act; the third ground falls under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and for that reason it was prayed by the Petitioner's that the election of the Respondent be declared void.
(3.) THE Respondent filed C.M. An. No. 16(E) of 1983 under Order 6 Rule 16 Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer to strike out the above described paragraphs of the election petition and to dismiss the election petition as one not disclosing a cause of action.;