The Orissa High Court dismissed a frivolous writ petition, seeking to declare Section 69 (ii) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 as unconstitutional to have a fair election and slapped Rs one lakh fine on the petitioner by casting doubts on the credentials of the petitioner.

“The writ petition stands dismissed with a cost of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh), which shall be deposited in the Advocate Welfare’s Fund of the High Court Bar Association within seven days, failing which the amount shall be recovered by initiating proceedings under the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 against the petitioner, so that the petitioner will refrain from filing such type of frivolous writ petition before this Court,” Acting Chief Justice Dr BR Sarangi and Justice Murahari Raman stated in an order on Monday.

Advertisement

Needless to say, if the amount is not deposited within the time stipulated, the State authority is free to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in addition to recovery of the amount under the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962, the order further said.

The petitioner Bibhutibhusan Mohapatra had filed the writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation seeking to declare Section 69 (ii) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 as unconstitutional to have a fair election.

The petitioner appearing in person contended that Section 69 (ii) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 is to be declared as ultra vires, as because democracy is the basic structure of the Constitution and free and fair election is the basic feature of democracy, which has been observed by the apex Court.

In course of hearing, when the Court asked the petitioner to explain the grounds based on which vires the provisions contained in Section 69 (ii) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 are to be declared as unconstitutional, nothing has been placed on record save and except stating that democracy is the basic structure of Constitution and free and fair election is the basic feature of democracy, which has been observed by the apex Court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another (supra).

This Court doubts the credential of the petitioner for filing of the present writ petition. As such, without justifying how Section 69 (ii) of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 is unconstitutional, this frivolous writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.