Smt. Hakri and ors. Vs. State of ors. - Court Judgment |
| Election |
| Rajasthan High Court |
| Jan-18-2001 |
| Civil Writ Petn. No. 556 of 2000 |
| Bhagwati Prasad, J. |
| AIR2002Raj4; 2001WLC(Raj)UC301; 2001(1)WLN719 |
| Constitution of India - Article 226; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 87 |
| Smt. Hakri and ors. |
| State of ors. |
| K.N. Joshi and; Dinesh Maheshwari, Advs. |
| N.K. Rastogi and; M.R. Patel, Advs. |
| Petition dismissed |
panchayat act, 1996 - election--election of ward panch challenged by this writ petition--document filed by petitioner not prepared correctly--material difference in two computation sheets annex r-1 & annex-1--no interference in writ jurisdiction is justified--petitioner is at liberty to file election petition.;writ petition dismissed - orderbhagwati prasad, j.1. learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on computationsheet annex. 1. the respondents have filedannex. r/1 and contested that there areobvious errors in the computation sheetannex. 1. in ward no. 8, there were threecandidates. only two candidates have beenshown in annex. 1. if three candidates areentered, then position becomes clear as evident from annex. r/1. comparing two documents, defect pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is obvious. further a look at annex. 1 shows that it hasbeen incorrectly prepared. not only the votesof the petitioner have been wrongly mentioned but age of the petitioner hakri hasbeen shown to be 466 years. obviously onthe basis of such document, no interferencecan be done in the writ jurisdiction of thiscourt. if any case or grievance remains withthe petitioners, they will be at liberty to filean election petition before the election tribunal.
ORDER
Bhagwati Prasad, J.
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on computationsheet Annex. 1. The respondents have filedAnnex. R/1 and contested that there areobvious errors in the computation sheetAnnex. 1. In ward No. 8, there were threecandidates. Only two candidates have beenshown in Annex. 1. If three candidates areentered, then position becomes clear as evident from Annex. R/1. Comparing two documents, defect pointed out by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is obvious. Further a look at Annex. 1 shows that it hasbeen incorrectly prepared. Not only the votesof the petitioner have been wrongly mentioned but age of the petitioner Hakri hasbeen shown to be 466 years. Obviously onthe basis of such document, no interferencecan be done in the writ jurisdiction of thisCourt. If any case or grievance remains withthe petitioners, they will be at liberty to filean election petition before the Election Tribunal.