JUDGMENT Binod Kumar Roy and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ.
1. The petitioners pray to command respondent No. 1 to register petitioner No. 1 as a political party by asserting, inter alia, that the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha is the oldest political party founded by Pandit Madan Mohan Malviya and other prominent and known leaders of the nation ; that due to the reasons enumerated in the writ petition most of the oldest Mahasabha members with others met on 9th and 10th October, 1993 at Badaun and constituted petitioner No. 1 and the petitioner No. 2 was unanimously elected as its president ; that on 13.10.1993, Bhagwan Saran Awasthi. Advocate, Shahjahanpur, who was elected as General Secretary of the party, went to the office of the respondent No. 1 Election Commission of India, and submitted papers for registration of petitioner No. 1 but the authorities of the respondent No. 1 openly refused to give registration to the petitioner No. 1 as a political party saying that Hindu is a religious name and that as the respondent No. 1 has illegally refused to register petitioner No. 1, hence, this writ petition.
3. In the counter-affidavit, sworn by Secretary of the respondent No. 1, a copy of which was sent by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner No. 2 at his address mentioned in the writ petition by registered post, it has been stated, inter alia, that a party is registered by the Election Commission under Section 29A of Representation of People Act. 1951 read with Registration of Political Parties (Furnishing of Additional Particulars) Order, 1992 issued under Section 29A(6) of the Act only on furnishing all the informations/ particulars and documents required under sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 29A and on fulfilment of each of the conditions of sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (7) thereof and also on furnishing each of the additional particulars specified under paragraph (2) of the Registration of Political Parties (Furnishing of Additional Particulars) Order ; that the application for registration is required to be made within 30 days next following the date of formation of the party ; that the petitioner No. 1 submitted an application dated 9.11.1993 for its registration in which 10.10.1993 was said to be its date of formation : the said application was received on 16.11.1993 after the stipulated period and vide letter dated 7.12.1993 the Commission asked the petitioner No. 1 to show cause as to why its application may not be treated as time-barred, besides the copy of the party, constitution submitted on behalf of the petitioner No. 1 was not legible and as this application did not contain additional particulars, it was advised to submit a legible copy of its constitution and furnish additional particulars but the petitioner No. 1 has not yet furnished the informations/documents called for nor has it shown the cause as to why its application should not be treated as time-barred ; and that as no final orders have been passed as yet, this writ petition is premature.
4. No one turns up on behalf of the petitioners to press this writ petition nor has any rejoinder-affidavit been filed disputing the correctness of the statements made in the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 1.
5. Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No, 1, contends that for the reasons mentioned in the counter-affidavit, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature.
6. We find force in this submission of Mr. Rai and accepting that dismiss this writ petition.
7. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned Additional Standing Counsel for Union of India within two weeks for its intimation to the authority concerned.