Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR96
K.J. Rohee, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by an elector challenging the election of the returned candidate from 134-Nagpur East Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2. The facts which are undisputed can be stated thus:The Programme of General Election 2004 for Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was declared on 15.9.2004 as under:i) Last Date for submission of Nomination Papers 22.09.2004ii) Scrutiny of Nomination Papers 23.09.2004iii) Last Date for withdrawal of Nomination Papers 25.09.2004iv) Polling 13.10.2004.v) Declaration of Result 16.10.2004. 3. Shri Satish Jhaulal Chaturvedi (R-1) represented 134 Nagpur-East Legislative Assembly Constituency during the elections of 1980, 1990 and 1995 as the candidate of Indian National Congress. He had lost only one election of the year 1985 wherein he had contested as an independent candidate. On 22.9.2004 R-1 presented his nomination paper to the Returning officer of 134 -Nagpur East ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act?) for improper acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The substance of the averments made in the election petition is that the respondent No.1 has failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted along-with his nomination paper delivered under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the information, as required under Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act, in respect of certain offences in which he is accused in a case pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The nomination of the respondent No.1 was required to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the said Act and the result of the election of the respondent No.1 has materially affected by such improper acceptance of his nomination, as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC317; JT1999(8)SC379; 1999(6)SCALE616; (2000)1SCC145; [1999]Supp4SCR76
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 preferred by a candidate, who, though successful at the polls, has lost in the election petition before the High Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the election petition filed before the High Court.2. Mohinder Nath Sof at, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition putting in issue the election of Smt. Krishna Mohini, the returned candidate, alleging improper rejection of the nomination papers of Sarvshri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh and also that the result of election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate having been materially affected by the improper acceptance of nomination paper of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj. The two grounds were covered by Section 100(1)(c) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short). Both the pleas have prevailed w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj293; 2001(1)WLC709
Ashok Parihar, J. 1. Legislative Assembly elections, including Nainwa Assembly Constituency of the Rajasthan Vidhan Sabha, were held in the month of November, 1998. As per the programme notified by the Election Commission, nomination papers were to be filed upto 3.00 P.M. of 6.11.1998. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was to takeplace on 7.11.1998. The last date for withdrawal of candidature was 9.11.1998. The election (polling) took place on 25.11.1998 and the results were declared on 28.11.1998. Respondent, Mr. Prabhulal Karsolia, was declared elected defeating his nearest rival Mr. Hari Mohan Sharma, the petitioner, by 6335 votes.2. The present election petition has been filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground of improper rejection of the nomination paper of one Mr. Mahendra Singh Gurjar. The petitioner filed his nomination paper as a candidate of the Indian National Congress, a registered and recognised political party. The respondent filed his nomination paper as a candidate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(3)ALD105
ORDERC.Y. Somayajulu, J.1. Questioning the rejection of his nomination for the 35-Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency, petitioner filed this petition.2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in pursuance of the notification issued by the Election Commission of India, he filed his nomination for the 35 Adilabad Parliamentary Constituency on 29-3-2004, at about 1-45 p.m., before the returning officer (second respondent) by depositing Rs. 10,0007- as security deposit, and took the oath as required, and that the second respondent through his memo dated 29-3-2004, directed him to produce the proforma affidavit in Form No. 26 positively 'before 11-00 a.m.,' on 2-4-2004 and though he sent his representative, along with his affidavit in Form No. 26, with a request to be present before the second respondent 'at 11 a.m.,' on 2-4-2004 though his representative entered the chambers of the 2nd respondent when his name at S.No. 10 was called at the time of scrutiny of the nominations, and requ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2005AP428; 2005(4)ALD485
ORDERV. Eswaraiah, J.1. Heard Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Government Pleader for GAD and HMA, Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao and Sri Upendra Chakravarthy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 respectively.2. Petitioner and Respondents 2 and 3 contested in the elections held to a member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the 32-Anakapalli Assembly Constituency. The Election notification was published on 24.3.2004 notifying the dates for filing nominations, scrutiny of the nominations, withdrawal of nominations, poll day for casting votes and the date of declaration of results. The last date for filing nominations was notified as 31.3.2004, the date of scrutiny of nominations was 2.4.2004, the date of withdrawal of nominations was 5.4.2004 and the poll date was scheduled on 20.4.2004.3. Petitioner is the Telugu Desam Party candidate, the second respondent is the Congress Party candidate and the third respondent is an independent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1994P& H77
ORDERA.L. Bahri, J.1. Two writ petitions filed by two political parties; (i) Shiromani Akali Dal (Simranjit Singh Mann) (C.W.P. No. 4091 of 1993) and (ii) Shiromani Akali Dal (Badal) (C.W.P. No. 4587 of 1993, were admitted to be heard by the Full Bench, as common substantial question of law are involved therein.2. With respect to grant of interim relief there was difference of opinion that the matter was referred to another Judge. Now at the final hearing we are not concerned with the issues relating to the grant of interim relief of postponing the elections.3. Broad facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 4091 of 1993 filed by Shiromani Akali Dal (Simranjit Singh Mann). The petitioner-party was derecognised vide order dated November 20, 1992, passed by Deputy Election Commissioner under the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Symbols Order') with the further direction that the aforesaid party shall not be entitled t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~14 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + % W.P.(C)No.7374/2017 and CM Nos.30434-36/2017 Date of decision :24. h August, 2017 SATYA NARAYAN PRASAD ........ Petitioner Through :... Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through : Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL JUDGMENT (ORAL) GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE This writ petition purporting to be in public interest states in 1. para (iv) of the grounds that the petitioner wants that this method of Election for member of Rajyasabha should be changed modified and reconsidered by Election Commission as well as by the ministry of Law and Justice, govt. of India. Wherein the govt. of India and Election Commission of India should frame/pass rules and regulations in this context that defeated leader in Loksabha/Vidhan Sabha Election cannot be elected as member of Rajyasabha and also cannot be appointed as the minister of the ruling ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1958P& H409
A.N. Bhandari, C.J.1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises the question whether an Election Tribunal is justified in declining to determine certain preliminary questions of law under the provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure which if decided in favour of the party objecting would dispense with any further trial or at any rate with the trial of some substantial issue in the case.2. Partap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of the Punjab, was elected a member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Sarhali Constituency of the Amritsar District defeating his rival candidate S. Gurmej Singh by a majority of over 20,000 votes.3. On 11-4-1957 S. Gurmej Singh presented an election petition in which he challenged the election of S. Partap Singh on a number of grounds, among others, being (1) that the nomination paper filed by one Santa Singh was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer, and (2) that S. Partap Singh had obtained the assistance of l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1955SC610; [1955]2SCR428
Jagannadhadas, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal, Akola, Madhya Pradesh, dated the 1st May, 1953, dismissing the election petition filed by the appellants. It relates to the election for the Akola Constituency of the State Assembly of Madhya Pradesh which was held on the 13th December, 1951, and the result of which was notified in the Gazette on the 4th April 1952. The two appellants are the electors of the said constituency. The first respondent was the successful candidate at the election. Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were the other three candidates who, having been validly nominated went to the polls but were defeated. The appellants filed the election petition under section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for setting aside the election on various allegations. The petition was filed on the 19th April, 1952, before the Election Commission at Delhi and...
Tag this Judgment!