Ajeya Bharat Party, Rep. by Its National President Ambati Krishna Murthy Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India and 2 ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act (59 of 1988)section 149 (2): [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers entitlement to defend the action joint appeal by insured and insurer - held, the language employed in enacting sub-section (2) of section 149 appears to be plain and simple and there is no ambiguity in it. it shows that when an insurer is impleaded and has been given notice of the case, it is entitled to defend the action only on grounds enumerated in sub-section (2) of section 149 of the act, and no other grounds are available to it. the insurer is not allowed to contest the claim of the injured or heirs of the deceased on other grounds, which are available to the insured. if insurer is permitted to contest the claim on other grounds it would mean adding more grounds of contest to the insurer and will be negation of the intention of the legislature and annihilate mandate of the provisions of sections 170 and 149 of the act. the insured can pursue appeal only after giving up the insurer as the appellant and not otherwise. in the instant case, the insurer has not withdrawn from party array but has remained prosecuting the appeal with the insured on the grounds which are available only to the insured. therefore, the joint appeal as filed by the insured and the insurer is not maintainable. section 166: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] claim for compensation accident due to mechanical defect in the vehicle held, it is not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in an accident, which occurred during the course of his employment, albeit due to his negligence but law does not render him remediless. statutory right is conferred on him, accruing by virtue of his employment under insured to claim compensation under workmens compensation act. the insurer is statutorily duty bound to discharge the liability of the owner of the vehicle, to pay such compensation to the employee, as mandated under the provisions of section 149 of the act. the right of an injured employee or his dependents as the case may be to be compensated, when injury is suffered or death occurs during his employment, is recognised not only under workmens compensation act, but also under benevolent provisions under section 166 and 167 of the m.v. act. the right of driver to seek compensation is not restricted only to the workmens compensation act, it has been enlarged to enable such person to seek just compensation (sections 166 and 168), conferring upon him the right of election engrafted under section 167 of the act to choose either of the two forum. the only defence which the insurer could take is limit of its liability as enumerated under section 147 of the act, leading to contest, inter alia, only between insured and insurer and does not impact claimants right to recover the compensation determined by the tribunal which crystallizes into enforceable right against both. in the instant case, the claimant/driver has exercised right of election under section 167 of the act to seek compensation under section 166 of the act resulting in award passed by the tribunal. therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the vehicle with mechanical defects, the owner would be the tortfeasor and the claimant can maintain a petition seeking compensation under the provisions of the act, instead of seeking compensation under the workmens compensation act. on facts, held, the material evidence on record, particularly, with regard to the income of the claimant, his age, medical evidence and the evidence relating to pecuniary loss has not been considered by the tribunal in the correct perspective, which has resulted in passing of the impugned award, disproportionate to the pecuniary loss and the loss of future income of the victim. the settled principles governing determination of compensation has been given a go-bye. compensation of rs.4,15,150/- awarded by the tribunal was enhanced to rs.8,20,000/-. - the petitioner party is getting good response for contesting the general elections to be held in april, 2009 under common symbol, on petitioner party symbol. if the symbol 'rail engine' is not allotted, the party, as well as the contesting candidates will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss, since the election commission is to conduct general elections in april, 2009 in the entire nation and the candidates of the petitioner party have to file nominations. it is for the election commission of india to see that there should not be any encroachment of other party flags, colours of the flag and its designs and symbols as well as the its policy.orderv. eswaraiah, j.1. ajeya bharat party, the petitioner herein seeks to issue a writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the chief election commissioner, election commission of india, new delhi and the electoral officer & e.o, principal secretary to government, general administration (elections) department, 'h' south block, a.p.secretariat, hyderabad in allowing the 3rd respondent-praja rajyam party, represented by its president, konnedala shiva shankar vara prasad @ mega star chiranjeevi to use the petitioner's flag design with symbol, colour and slogan 'prajala rajyam' widely in public meetings including electronic media, which belong to the petitioner registered political party, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the representation of the people act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rp act').2. it is stated that the petitioner is a registered political party, registered under section 29a of the rp act in the year 1998. it is not a recognized party and therefore, no symbol was reserved for it. however, the petitioner, being a registered political party, entitled to preferential consideration in respect of a free symbol over independent candidates under paragraph-12 of the election symbols (reservation and allotment) order, 1968. it is stated that originally the symbol 'bell' was allotted to the petitioner political party, but it was taken away by the election commission of india on the ground that it represents hindu gods. therefore, the petitioner party made a representation before the election commission of india on 09.03.2009, requesting to allot symbol 'rail engine' in the place of 'bell', since the party is going to contest more than 200 parliamentary constituencies. it is stated that the 2nd respondent was also requested to allot the 'rail engine' symbol, vide letter dated 16.03.2009. the petitioner party participated in the elections in national level in the year 1998 and one mr. rudradev singh was elected as a member of parliament from madhya pradesh out of 110 contesting candidates and in the year 1999 about 170 candidates were participated and contested on behalf of petitioner party. the petitioner party is getting good response for contesting the general elections to be held in april, 2009 under common symbol, on petitioner party symbol. if the symbol 'rail engine' is not allotted, the party, as well as the contesting candidates will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss, since the election commission is to conduct general elections in april, 2009 in the entire nation and the candidates of the petitioner party have to file nominations.3. it is further stated that the petitioner party at the time of registration submitted detailed requisite forms along with three models of flag designs for registration of party name, symbol and flag model. the flag model chosen by the petitioner contains three colours, viz., saffron (light colour) white and green and in centre represented by 'rising sun' which has 24 rays around the sun and the sun shown with two eyes, nose and mouth as its features. the petitioner party also followed the foot steps of the renowned leaders, namely father of nation mahatma gandhi, mother theresa, jyothirao pule, dr. b.ambedhkar and his holiness maharshi mahesh yogi and design which has the slogan 'prajala rajyam'. the slogan of the petitioner party and the photo features except the name of his holiness maharshi mahesh yogi including the symbol sun and two colours out of three had been adopted by the 3rd respondent- praja rajyam party without any authority or locus and as if the petitioner party is isolated and ignored. it is stated that the 3rd respondent party has taken everything as if it is granted without verifying the factual basis when it launched its party without verifying the petitioner party's flag and design. it is stated that the 3rd respondent party without verifying the petitioner's flag, symbol, its colour and design before going for registration, trespassed into the rights of the petitioner's registered political party, manifesto and its features. it is for the election commission of india to see that there should not be any encroachment of other party flags, colours of the flag and its designs and symbols as well as the its policy.4. it is stated that the flag of the petitioner was registered at the national level along with its symbol, colours and design with slogan in january, 1998. however, respondents nos. 1 and 2 erroneously allowed the 3rd respondent to name the petitioner party's slogan 'prajala rajyam' as 'praja rajyam' along with flag of the petitioner party with the symbol of sun etc. and therefore, a representation was made before the 2nd respondent to take necessary action as per the election procedure. it is also stated that registration of 3rd respondent-praja rajyam political party with similar flag colour, design, and slogan and sun symbol gives confusion to the voters and the petitioner party may loose their vote bank by virtue of unfair practice adopted by the 3rd respondent-praja rajyam party. it is further stated that the action of the 1st respondent in registering 3rd respondent-praja rajyam party without verifying the records of the petitioner party's flag, design and slogan is illegal and unfair and therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is liable to be declared as null and void, unconstitutional and contrary to the rp act.5. we have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. s.niranjan reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 1 and 2.the learned counsel appearing for the election commission submits that perusal of the material papers do not disclose any date of filing of the so- called representation by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and the description of the 2nd respondent is not proper, which is described as under:the electoral officer & e.o. principal secretary to government, general administration (elections) dept., 'h' south block, ap secretariat, hyderabadhe also submits that the so-called representation said to have been made before the election commission of india is also not filed as material papers along with the writ petition.6. under section 29-a, any association or body of individual citizens of india calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of part-iv-a of rp act which relates to registration of political parties, is entitled to make an application to the election commission for its registration as a political party for the purpose of the rp act. the formed association or the body of the individuals is entitled to make an application before the election commission within thirty days from the date of its formation. such application shall contain the following particulars, namely:(a) the name of the association or body;(b) the state in which its head office is situate;(c) the address to which letters and other communications meant for it should be sent;(d) the names of its president, secretary, treasurer and other office-bearers;(e) the numerical strength of its members, and if there are categories of its members, the numerical strength in each category;(f) whether it has any local units; if so, at what levels;(g) whether it is represented by any member or members in either house of parliament or of any state legislature; if so, the number of such member or members.such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body, by whatever name called, and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of india as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of india. thereafter, the commission after calling for such other particulars of the relevant factors shall decide either to register the association or body as a political party or not so to register it, and the commission shall communicate its decision to the association or body. the decision of the commission shall be final. it is stated that the name of the political party alone will be registered and there is no specific provision for registration of the flag, design of the flag in the rp act.7. the petitioner filed photo copies of its flag described as 'ajeya bharat party' with a slogan in telugu 'prajala rajyam' and with a photo of his holiness maharshi mahesh yogi in the centre and photos of mother theresa and mahatma gandhi are on left side and photos of jyothirao pule and dr. b.ambedhkar are appearing on right side. for the sun symbol there are 24 rays and the sun symbol is having eyes, nose and mouth. but, whereas the flag of 3rd respondent- praja rajyam party does not have any such feature in the sun symbol. the name of the petitioner party is 'ajeya bharat party' but not 'prajala rajyam'. it is stated that the slogan of the petitioner party is 'prajala rajyam', but whereas the registered name of the 3rd respondent-political party is 'praja rajyam'. there is distinction and difference in between the name of the party, slogan and party flag in between the petitioner party and 3rd respondent party. the petitioner is not seeking a direction for allotment of a particular symbol as common symbol from the free symbol to its candidates.8. we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has got a right over any particular design, flag with symbol, colour and slogans. the petitioner political party registered with the election commission of india as 'ajeya bharat party' for the purpose of the provisions of the rp act. the requirement under section 29-a of the rp act is only to register any association or body of individual citizens of india calling itself as a political party. the name of the petitioner's registered political party is 'ajeya bharat party'. except to register the name of the political party, there is no legal requirement to register a particular flag, design or slogans. the so-called slogan of 'prajala rajyam' of 'ajeya bharat party' was not registered, and there is no provision for registration of any slogan in the rp act. the registration of an association or body of individuals are entitled to get the name of the party to be called as a political party for its identification under section 29a of the r.p.act. there is no provision for registration of a flag symbol or slogan. a recognized political party will be entitled to reserve a symbol as long as it continues the required following. the flag, slogan or symbol is not a property to get it reserved or registered or to have a monopoly over it.9. under article 19(1)(c) of the constitution of india, the citizens of india shall have the right to form associations or unions. forming of association by the individual citizens is a fundamental right guaranteed under article 19(1)(c) of the constitution of india. that association is also entitled to get itself called as a political party for the purpose of availing the provisions of part-iv-a of the rp act.10. the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the supreme court in the case of dr. das rao deshmukh v. kamal kishore nanasaheb kadam and ors. : air1996sc391 . the said case relates to allegation of indulging in corrupt practice under section 123(3) and 123(3a) of the rp act. the allegations in the said case are that the elected candidate indulged in corrupt practice by appealing the voters to vote for him on the ground of hindu religion and also promoted the feeling of enmity or hatred between the two religions. the said allegations were proved in the election petition holding that the elected candidate, his election agent and other persons with consent of the elected candidate carried out election campaign on the basis of religion and also with a view to promote religious hatred between different class of citizens and thus committed corrupt practice under section 123(2), (3) and (3a) of the rp act. it was also held that in the specimen posters it was indicated that to protect hinduism and hindu religion the valuable vote should be cast in favour of the shiv sena- bjp alliance candidate dr. deshmukh and such vote should be cast to 'teach a lesson to muslims'. such posters were exhibited in a number of places in the town of that constituency. thus, it was held that the elected candidate indulged in corrupt practice and accordingly the said election was set aside. section 123(3) of the rp act prohibits the use of national symbols such as national flag or national emblem in the election campaign. therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no relevance to the facts of the present case.11. the name of the petitioner is 'ajeya bharat party', but whereas the name of the 3rd respondent is 'praja rajyam party'. however, the design of the flag, colour and slogan are different and distinct. in the absence of any right conferred either under the rp act or under the constitution of india, reserving to make use of a particular flag, design or symbol, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has no right over the flag design with symbol, colour and slogan of the 3rd respondent political party. the 3rd respondent association which was registered as a political party for the lawful purpose and they have a fundamental right to form/register it as a political party and the particular flag design and slogan is not anyone's property and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right or grievance about the flag, its design, symbol, colour or slogan canvassed and made use by the 3rd respondent party.12. for the foregoing observations, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merits and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

V. Eswaraiah, J.

1. Ajeya Bharat Party, the petitioner herein seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India, New Delhi and the Electoral Officer & E.O, Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Elections) Department, 'H' South Block, A.P.Secretariat, Hyderabad in allowing the 3rd respondent-Praja Rajyam Party, represented by its President, Konnedala Shiva Shankar Vara Prasad @ Mega Star Chiranjeevi to use the petitioner's flag design with symbol, colour and slogan 'Prajala Rajyam' widely in public meetings including electronic media, which belong to the petitioner registered political party, as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RP Act').

2. It is stated that the petitioner is a registered political party, registered under Section 29A of the RP Act in the year 1998. It is not a recognized party and therefore, no symbol was reserved for it. However, the petitioner, being a registered political party, entitled to preferential consideration in respect of a free symbol over independent candidates under Paragraph-12 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. It is stated that originally the symbol 'Bell' was allotted to the petitioner political party, but it was taken away by the Election Commission of India on the ground that it represents Hindu Gods. Therefore, the petitioner party made a representation before the Election Commission of India on 09.03.2009, requesting to allot symbol 'Rail Engine' in the place of 'Bell', since the party is going to contest more than 200 Parliamentary constituencies. It is stated that the 2nd respondent was also requested to allot the 'Rail Engine' symbol, vide letter dated 16.03.2009. The petitioner party participated in the elections in national level in the year 1998 and one Mr. Rudradev Singh was elected as a Member of Parliament from Madhya Pradesh out of 110 contesting candidates and in the year 1999 about 170 candidates were participated and contested on behalf of petitioner party. The petitioner party is getting good response for contesting the General Elections to be held in April, 2009 under common symbol, on petitioner party symbol. If the symbol 'Rail Engine' is not allotted, the party, as well as the contesting candidates will be put to great hardship and irreparable loss, since the Election Commission is to conduct General Elections in April, 2009 in the entire nation and the candidates of the petitioner party have to file nominations.

3. It is further stated that the petitioner party at the time of registration submitted detailed requisite forms along with three models of flag designs for registration of party name, symbol and flag model. The flag model chosen by the petitioner contains three colours, viz., Saffron (light colour) White and Green and in centre represented by 'Rising Sun' which has 24 rays around the Sun and the Sun shown with two eyes, nose and mouth as its features. The petitioner party also followed the foot steps of the renowned leaders, namely Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Jyothirao Pule, Dr. B.Ambedhkar and His Holiness Maharshi Mahesh Yogi and design which has the slogan 'Prajala Rajyam'. The slogan of the petitioner party and the photo features except the name of His Holiness Maharshi Mahesh Yogi including the symbol Sun and two colours out of three had been adopted by the 3rd respondent- Praja Rajyam Party without any authority or locus and as if the petitioner party is isolated and ignored. It is stated that the 3rd respondent party has taken everything as if it is granted without verifying the factual basis when it launched its party without verifying the petitioner party's flag and design. It is stated that the 3rd respondent party without verifying the petitioner's flag, symbol, its colour and design before going for registration, trespassed into the rights of the petitioner's registered political party, manifesto and its features. It is for the Election Commission of India to see that there should not be any encroachment of other party flags, colours of the flag and its designs and symbols as well as the its policy.

4. It is stated that the flag of the petitioner was registered at the national level along with its symbol, colours and design with slogan in January, 1998. However, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 erroneously allowed the 3rd respondent to name the petitioner party's slogan 'Prajala Rajyam' as 'Praja Rajyam' along with flag of the petitioner party with the symbol of Sun etc. and therefore, a representation was made before the 2nd respondent to take necessary action as per the Election procedure. It is also stated that registration of 3rd respondent-Praja Rajyam Political Party with similar flag colour, design, and slogan and Sun symbol gives confusion to the voters and the petitioner party may loose their vote bank by virtue of unfair practice adopted by the 3rd respondent-Praja Rajyam Party. It is further stated that the action of the 1st respondent in registering 3rd respondent-Praja Rajyam Party without verifying the records of the petitioner party's flag, design and slogan is illegal and unfair and therefore, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is liable to be declared as null and void, unconstitutional and contrary to the RP Act.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

The learned Counsel appearing for the Election Commission submits that perusal of the material papers do not disclose any date of filing of the so- called representation by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and the description of the 2nd respondent is not proper, which is described as under:

The Electoral Officer & E.O. Principal Secretary to Government, General Administration (Elections) Dept., 'H' South Block, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

He also submits that the so-called representation said to have been made before the Election Commission of India is also not filed as material papers along with the writ petition.

6. Under Section 29-A, any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself a political party and intending to avail itself of the provisions of Part-IV-A of RP Act which relates to registration of political parties, is entitled to make an application to the Election Commission for its registration as a political party for the purpose of the RP Act. The formed association or the body of the individuals is entitled to make an application before the Election Commission within thirty days from the date of its formation. Such application shall contain the following particulars, namely:

(a) the name of the association or body;

(b) the State in which its head office is situate;

(c) the address to which letters and other communications meant for it should be sent;

(d) the names of its president, secretary, treasurer and other office-bearers;

(e) the numerical strength of its members, and if there are categories of its members, the numerical strength in each category;

(f) whether it has any local units; if so, at what levels;

(g) whether it is represented by any member or members in either House of Parliament or of any State Legislature; if so, the number of such member or members.

Such application shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum or rules and regulations of the association or body, by whatever name called, and such memorandum or rules and regulations shall contain a specific provision that the association or body shall bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, and to the principles of socialism, secularism and democracy, and would uphold the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India. Thereafter, the Commission after calling for such other particulars of the relevant factors shall decide either to register the association or body as a political party or not so to register it, and the Commission shall communicate its decision to the association or body. The decision of the Commission shall be final. It is stated that the name of the political party alone will be registered and there is no specific provision for registration of the flag, design of the flag in the RP Act.

7. The petitioner filed Photo copies of its flag described as 'Ajeya Bharat Party' with a slogan in Telugu 'Prajala Rajyam' and with a photo of His Holiness Maharshi Mahesh Yogi in the centre and photos of Mother Theresa and Mahatma Gandhi are on left side and photos of Jyothirao Pule and Dr. B.Ambedhkar are appearing on right side. For the Sun symbol there are 24 rays and the Sun symbol is having eyes, nose and mouth. But, whereas the flag of 3rd respondent- Praja Rajyam Party does not have any such feature in the Sun symbol. The name of the petitioner party is 'Ajeya Bharat Party' but not 'Prajala Rajyam'. It is stated that the slogan of the petitioner party is 'Prajala Rajyam', but whereas the registered name of the 3rd respondent-political party is 'Praja Rajyam'. There is distinction and difference in between the name of the party, slogan and party flag in between the petitioner party and 3rd respondent party. The petitioner is not seeking a direction for allotment of a particular symbol as common symbol from the free symbol to its candidates.

8. We are unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has got a right over any particular design, flag with symbol, colour and slogans. The petitioner political party registered with the Election Commission of India as 'Ajeya Bharat Party' for the purpose of the provisions of the RP Act. The requirement under Section 29-A of the RP Act is only to register any association or body of individual citizens of India calling itself as a political party. The name of the petitioner's registered political party is 'Ajeya Bharat Party'. Except to register the name of the political party, there is no legal requirement to register a particular flag, design or slogans. The so-called slogan of 'Prajala Rajyam' of 'Ajeya Bharat Party' was not registered, and there is no provision for registration of any slogan in the RP Act. The registration of an Association or body of individuals are entitled to get the name of the party to be called as a political party for its identification under Section 29A of the R.P.Act. There is no provision for registration of a flag symbol or slogan. A recognized political party will be entitled to reserve a symbol as long as it continues the required following. The flag, slogan or symbol is not a property to get it reserved or registered or to have a monopoly over it.

9. Under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India, the citizens of India shall have the right to form associations or unions. Forming of association by the individual citizens is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India. That association is also entitled to get itself called as a political party for the purpose of availing the provisions of part-IV-A of the RP Act.

10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Das Rao Deshmukh v. Kamal Kishore Nanasaheb Kadam and Ors. : AIR1996SC391 . The said case relates to allegation of indulging in corrupt practice under Section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the RP Act. The allegations in the said case are that the elected candidate indulged in corrupt practice by appealing the voters to vote for him on the ground of Hindu Religion and also promoted the feeling of enmity or hatred between the two religions. The said allegations were proved in the election petition holding that the elected candidate, his election agent and other persons with consent of the elected candidate carried out election campaign on the basis of religion and also with a view to promote religious hatred between different class of citizens and thus committed corrupt practice under Section 123(2), (3) and (3A) of the RP Act. It was also held that in the specimen posters it was indicated that to protect Hinduism and Hindu religion the valuable vote should be cast in favour of the Shiv Sena- BJP alliance candidate Dr. Deshmukh and such vote should be cast to 'teach a lesson to Muslims'. Such posters were exhibited in a number of places in the town of that constituency. Thus, it was held that the elected candidate indulged in corrupt practice and accordingly the said election was set aside. Section 123(3) of the RP Act prohibits the use of national symbols such as national flag or national emblem in the election campaign. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment has no relevance to the facts of the present case.

11. The name of the petitioner is 'Ajeya Bharat Party', but whereas the name of the 3rd respondent is 'Praja Rajyam Party'. However, the design of the flag, colour and slogan are different and distinct. In the absence of any right conferred either under the RP Act or under the Constitution of India, reserving to make use of a particular flag, design or symbol, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has no right over the flag design with symbol, colour and slogan of the 3rd respondent political party. The 3rd respondent association which was registered as a political party for the lawful purpose and they have a fundamental right to form/register it as a political party and the particular flag design and slogan is not anyone's property and therefore, the petitioner cannot have any right or grievance about the flag, its design, symbol, colour or slogan canvassed and made use by the 3rd respondent party.

12. For the foregoing observations, we are of the opinion that the writ petition is without any merits and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.