Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1985Ker148
Bhaskaran Nambiar, J.1. Some of the Hindu Members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly challenge 'The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984' -- in short the Ordinance -- under which every Hindu member of the Legislative Assembly of this State who intends to participate in the election of one member to the Travancore Devaswom Board is compelled to file a declaration signed by him 'to the effect that he believes in God and professes the Hindu religion.'2. The Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (Act XV of 1950) was enacted to make provision 'for the administration, supervision and control of incorporated and unincorporated Devaswom and other Hindu Religious Endowments and Funds', of the Travancore, Cochin areas. The Act provides for the vesting of the administration of the Devaswoms in Devaswom Boards, one for the Travancore and another for the Cochin areas and the provisions in respect of the two Devaswoms are practically the same....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Misc Civil 13993 Of 2011 Is Filed Under Section 151 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 R/W Rule 94 Of The Conduct Of Election Rules, 1961 Praying To Direct The Additional District Election Officer, Bangalore (North) Cum Joint Commissioner, Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike, Mahadevapura Zone, Bangalore-560048 Not To Dispose Of/Destroy Any Of The Records And Electronic Records Including Videographs Pertaining To The Election Held To Karnataka Legislative Assembly During The Year 2008 To 151 K.R.Puram Assembly Constituency Without Permission From This Hon’ble Court And Etc.,) 1. Three applications have been filed on behalf of the respondent in Misc Civil No 13993 of 2011, under Section 151 CPC r/w Rule 94 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [for short, the Rules]; Misc Civil No 13994 of 2011, under Order XVI Rule 6 r/w Section 151 CPC r/w Rule 94 of the Rules and Misc Civil No 13994 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC. 2. All applications are suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. This miscellaneous application has stemmed out of Election Petition No. 2 of 2007. The election petitioner has filed this application objecting the counterclaim made in the written statement filed by the respondent in the main election petition.2. Before I step in the legal question raised in this miscellaneous application, it would be apposite to set out the facts of the case giving raise to the filing of the election petition, as well as this application.2.1 The election petitioner and the respondent and few other candidates contested the election of the 9th Manipur Legislative Assembly from 6-Keirao Assembly Constituency. The election result was declared on 27-2-2007. The respondent defeated the election petitioner by a thin margin of 2 (two) votes only. Having realized that due to improper and illegal reception of few votes materially effecting the election of the respondent, one of the defeated candidates namely Shri Thamarjit Singh has challenged the election ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(4)ALLMR522; 2007(1)BomCR521; 2006(3)MhLj835
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges communication dated 11-3-2006 forwarded by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner. By the said communication at Exhibit 'G', page 30, respondent No. 3 viz. Registrar of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad (henceforth referred as 'B.A.M.U.', for the sake of brevity), informed the petitioner of respondent No. 1, the Vice Chancellor of B.A.M.U. having passed orders disqualifying the petitioner from his membership on the Senate and Board of Studies in Economics (henceforth 'BOS', for short), in view of his conviction by IVth Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad, in Regular Criminal Case No. 6064/2004, dated 28th February, 2006. It is informed to the petitioner that in view of the disqualification incurred, the petitioner ceases to be a member of the aforesaid authorities of the University. Consequently, it app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1988HP41
R.S. Thakur, J.1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution ofIndia is directed against the order dated December 30, 1986, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hamirpur (Respondent No. 5), Annexure PA, whereby the election of the petitioner to the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Dhanwan was set aside and Bhupinder Singh (Respondent No. 1) was declared as having been validly elected to the said office in his place.2. The facts relevant for the disposal ofthis petition are that the election to the officeof the Pradhan and Members of the GramPanchayat, Dhanwan was held oh September23, 1985, wherein the petitioner andrespondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were thecontesting candidates for the office of Pradhanof the said Panchayat. The AssistantReturning Officer connected with the saidelection declared the result of the election ofPradhan on the same day which was asfollows : --(a) Total votes polled :-802(bt Votes, Udho Ram, petitioner polled:-322(c) Votes, Bhupinder Singh,res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2007Utr69
ORDERB.S. Verma, J.1. By means of the present election petition, the petitioner has challenged the election to Legislative Assembly Constituency No. Dehradun-14 and to quash the entire election process of the respondent Nos. 7 to 19 on the ground of invalidity of their nomination forms and to declare the petitioner to have been elected to the said election unopposed.2. The petitioner has further challenged the election of the respondent No. 7 as Chairman of the Uttrakhand Legislative Assembly to be declared as illegal.3. Admittedly, the election to the State Legislative Assembly was notified in the Official Gazette on 25th January, 2007. The petitioner has alleged that in the legislative assembly constituency No. 14-Dehradun, the respondent No. 7 Harbans Kapoor was declared to have been elected after the counting of votes on 27-2-2007. Disappointed, the petitioner has sent the present petition to this Court by speed post.4. On receipt of the election petition to this Court, the followi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1358; (1980)2SCC350; 1980(12)LC124(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Asd Lal, who contested the election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Fazilka constituency in June, 1977, filed a petition Co challenge the election of Kanshi Ram, hereinafter referred to as the respondent. He has filed the present appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 20, 1978, as his petition has been dismissed with costs. While the appellant was a candidate of the Janata Party and secured 19,929 votes, the respondent was a candidate of the Congress Party and secured 23,409 votes. There were other contestants at the election, but they fared badly and it is not necessary to refer to them. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that he was not qualified to contest the election Under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act,1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act as he did not make the subscribe the oath prescribed by Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1997Ori60
ORDERR.K. Patra, J.1. In this petition, election of respondent No. 1 from 105 -- Boudh Assembly Constituency to the Orissa Legislative Assembly is under challenge.2. General election to the Orissa Legislative Assembly took place in the month of March, 1995. Polling for the constituency in question took place on 9-3-1995. The petitioner contested the ejection as Congress candidate with the symbol 'Hand'. Respondent No. 1 was a candidate of the Janata Dal with the symbol 'Chakra'. Respondents 2 to 9 filed their nominations as candidates from different political parties and/or as independent candidates. Counting of votes took place on 11-3-1995. The petitioner secured 41,932 valid votes in his favour whereas respondent No. 1 got 44,423 valid votes in his favour. As respondent No. 1 secured the highest number of votes, he was declared elected. Being feltaggrieved by such declaration, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying to:--(i) order inspection, scrutiny and recount of al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 1971CriLJ742
ORDERS.K. Ray, J.1. This is an application for quashing proceedings of the Certificate Officer of Boudh in Certificate Case No. III-8/65 in which bv order dated 10-4-67 the said Certificate Officer has found | the petitioner to be liable to be committed Under Section 478 Cr.PC for an offence Under Section 228 IPC. and that he has also committed contempt of court by casting aspersions on the Certificate Officer to his integrity and judiciousness.2. The background of this proceeding may be briefly stated. The petitioner is the Commercial Tax Officer. Ganjam II Circle, Bhanianagar. He assessed one Bhagaban Panda of Bhagiabahal to sales tax in exercise of his powers as Sales Tax Officer under the provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act of 1947. The assessee having defaulted to pay the tax, recourse was taken to certificate procedure under the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of the same. The requisition was sent Under Section 4 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT149; 2012(3)KHC60; 2012(3)KLJ241
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.502/2009 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. He filed a nomination paper to contest the election to the last Lok Sabha Election from Ponnani constituency. An affidavit was also sworn to and produced with his nomination paper as mandated by Section 33A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (for short R.P. Act). That affidavit contained a false averment and the Form 2A filed with nomination contained false statement, suppression of his previous conviction in a criminal case, was the basis of a complaint from the returning officer, on which a crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 125A of the R.P Act. After investigation of the crime Annexure A2 report was filed indicting the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Petitioner has filed the above petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') to quash the criminal proceedings against him contending that he was not ...
Tag this Judgment!