JUDGMENT B.K. Roy and R.K. Mahajan, JJ.
1. The petitioner. Bharat Jan Kalyan Sarhiti, who claims itself to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, has come up for quashing the amended Rule 90 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as published in the Government of India Gazette [Extraordinary) Chapter II Part III (11), dated 31.12.1997 raising the maximum limit of the election expenses to Rs. 15 lacs for a Parliamentary constituency and to Rs. 6 lacs for a State Legislature Constituency.
2. The Central Government has exercised its powers vested under Section 169 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, after consultation with the Election Commission which is apparent from a bare perusal of the Gazette notification Itself.
3. The petitioner asserts that the amendment aforesaid is ultra litres Article 14 of the Constitution of India but without demonstrating as to how it has offended the equality clause.
4. The petitioner avers, inter alia, that this debars young man and woman of the State from contesting the elections as most of them are unemployed, economically weak and not in a position to spend Rs. 15 lacs ; that raising of maximum limit of election expenses by nearly about four times will prompt corruption, criminal activities and unfairness ; that because of this increase the citizen of the country will be taxed ; and that Illegal money will be used by persons who are of criminal background, corrupt and otherwise bad elements.
5. Sri S. N. S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner fails prima facie to substantiate the grounds by giving any illustration whatsoever so that we could call upon the Respondents to file their counter-affidavit.
6. What has really been done is that merely the permissible extent of election expenditures have been raised and no one has been deprived to fight the election, if he chooses to do so. Thus, we do not see any discrimination between the persons who are fighting elections either for the Parliament or the State Legislatures.
7. One should take judicial notice of the apparent price rise of all things/articles/commodities. There are many fold rise in the cost of petrol/ diesel, papers and printing, vehicles (Car/Jeeps/Tractors/Buses/Cycles and even their fares, labour and loudspeakers, etc. essential for fighting election.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.
9. Sri Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the union appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri H. R. Misra. learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 both pray for cost on the ground that it is thoroughly misconceived writ petition. However, cost is declined.
10. The office is directed to hand-over a copy of this order by Monday to both learned standing counsel for its communication to the respective Governments.