Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2001AP538
E. Dharma Rao, J. 1. Keshav Jadhav, the writ petitioner, who contested as an independent candidate for the State Legislative Assembly from 214-Maharajgunj Constituency, assails the correctness of the order No. 76/AP/LA/97, dated 8-2-1999 issued by the Election Commission of India, disqualifying him to be chosen as and for being a member of either House of Parliament or the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State for a period of three years, for his failure to lodge the account of election expenses, as required under the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act) in this writ petition.2. On receipt of report dated 18-1-1995 and 29-3-1995 from the District Election Officer, under Rule 89(1) of the Election of Conduct Rules, 1961 (for brevity the Rules), that all the contesting candidates from 214 Maharajgunj constituency have lodged their account of election expenses except the petitioner and 9 other candidates, a notice dated 9-1-1996 was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Major S. N. Tripathi, the petitioner who appeared in person and Sri I. B. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Jaiswal, learned counsel for the opposite parties. The petitioner preferred this Election Petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter known as R.P. Act) challenging the validity of the election of the opposite party no. 3/returned candidate. The petitioner has prayed that the election of the elected candidate i.e. opposite party no. 3 be declared as void under the provisions of Section 98 (b) of the R.P. Act. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the present election petition mainly on the following grounds: i. This election was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of this R.P. Act and hence it is void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of this R.P. Act. ii. The opposite party no. 3 has been elected as a delegate/agent of an association or a body of persons and such a person is not qualified to be chosen to fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI :17. h December, 2013 Date of Decision :6. h February, 2014 Reserved on % + W.P.(C) 7459/2013 & & CM APPL. 15956/2013 MANOHAR LAL SHARMA ... Petitioner Through : Petitioner in person with Ms. Suman and Mr. Sadashir Gupta, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA Through : ... Respondent Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC, Mr. Vineet Tayal and Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT N.V. RAMANA, CHIEF JUSTICE:1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (for short, impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India (for short, the Constitution), vitiated by mala fides and against the general public interest. Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned Amendment and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(1)BomCR914
Marlapalle B.H., J. 1. Heard Shri Raghuwanshi for the petitioner, Shri Salunke for respondent No. 3, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Shri Bagul for respondent No. 7.2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner at Aurangabad on 8th July, 2004 in Election Petition No. of 2002, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. By the said decision, the election petition, filed by the present respondent No. 3, came to be allowed and the petitioner came to be unseated as a member of the Managing Committee (Board of Directors) of the respondent No. 7 Bank Le. the District Central Co-operative Bank, Parbhani.3. On or about 8th of March, 2001 one of the sitting members of the Managing Committee of Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society, Lasina vacated his post and in his place the petitioner came to be co-opted on 24th March, 2001 as a member of the said village level society which, in turn, is a member ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Reported in : 2003(4)MPHT17(CG)
ORDERFakhruddin, J. 1. The applicant has moved this Court by filing a revision petition under Section 441F (2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 against the judgment and order dated 25-4-2003 passed in Election Petition No. 2/2002 by the District Judge, Raipur, challenging the election of Mayor having been declared void. The applicant has also sought for stay of the effect and operation of the said order passed by the Election Tribunal.2. The revision petition has already been admitted for hearing. Arguments have been advanced by the Counsel for the parties. Advocate General of the State of Chhattisgarh has also addressed.3. Before dealing with the factual matrix, it is pertinent to mention here that learned Counsel for the parties have referred to the provisions of Articles 190, 191, 192, 243P, 243Q, 243R and 243V. The provisions of Schedule VII - Entries 72, 73 and 74 of List I - Union List, Schedule VII -Entries 37, 38 and 39 of List II - State List have also been referred. Cer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC935; JT1999(1)SC351; 1999(1)SCALE349; (1999)2SCC489; [1999]1SCR470; 1999(1)LC771(SC)
ORDER REGARDING SCRUTINYThe Nomination of Sunil Kumar was received on 20.1.1997 at 12.10 p.m. His name was proposed by one proposal and was registered at serial No. 8.On 20.1.1997 the candidate brought Form A and Form B wherein it has been mentioned by the President of the Bhartiya Janta Party that Sunil Kumar would be main party candidate.However another candidate namely Shri Vir Abhimanu also filed Form A & Form B along with his application wherein it has been mentioned that he is the main candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party.However on the date of scrutiny it was noticed that his authorisation does not any where state that the earlier authorisation has been cancelled. Shri Sunil Mehra has pleaded that since his papers are in order his candidature cannot be rejected at this stage - opportunity should be given to the party to withdraw candidature before the last date of withdrawal. He also argued that the party has a right to cancel or substitute an authorisation in favour of any candida...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
ANTONYDOMINIC, J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether a registered Dentist, whose name is entered in the Part A State Register, maintained under the provisions of Chapter IV of the Dentists Act, 1948, but is not included in the Electoral Roll published by the Returning Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the Dental Council (Election) Regulations 1952(hereinafter referred to as 'Regulation' for short) is entitled to be a candidate in an election held in terms of Section 3(a) of the Act to the Dental Council of India. 2. The first respondent, is a Dentist who is registered in the Part A State Register, and this factual position is not disputed by the appellants. On 8.6.2009, a Returning Officer was appointed by the State Government for conducting the election, of one registered Dentist possessing recognized dental qualification, to the Dental Council of India. On appointment, notice of election was published by the Returning Officer on 22.11.2009 which inter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 132 of 2016 --- Umesh Kumar Singh @ Umesh Singh --- --- ---- Petitioner Versus 1. State Election Commission through the State Election Commissioner 2. Ramesh Harshdhar --- --- --- Respondents --- CORAM:The Honble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. A.K. Das, Ms. Jyoti Nayan Advocates For the Resp No. 1: M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Prem Pujari Roy, Advocates For the Resp No. 2: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate --- 07/ 30.03.2016 Heard counsel for the parties.2. The legal issue involved herein is, whether petitioner has been rightly disqualified by the impugned order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the respondent Election Commission under Section 18(1)(k) of Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 for non-furnishing affidavit of his conviction in Koderma (T) P.S. Case No. 221/1995 corresponding to G.R. No. 523/1995, T.R. No. 745/2012 for the offences under sections 147, 323 and 337 of Indian Penal Code by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)152PLR193
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.1. The petitioner, who is a sitting Panch and was the candidate for the office of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Bhamian Khurd, Block Ludhiana-2, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the election of respondent No. 5 as Sarpanch of the aforesaid Gram Panchayat, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayati Raj Act'); and for issuing a direction to the respondents to hold fresh election by way of secret 'allot, as so observed by this Court in order dated July 16, 2008 (Annexure P-2), passed in C.W.P. No. 12006 of 2008.2. In the present case, after the election of the Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Bhamian Khurd was duly notified by the Government and after the taking of oath or affirmation under Section 13 of the Panchayati Raj Act, the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana authorized responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1985(2)SCALE384; (1985)4SCC689; [1985]Supp1SCR493; 1986(1)LC104(SC)
1. There are four appeals and a Transferred Case before us. The appeals arise out of interim orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on February 12 and 19, 1982 which were confirmed by him on February 25, 1982. Those orders were passed in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution asking for the writs of mandamus and certiorari, directing that the instructions issued by the Election Commission should not be implemented by the Chief Electoral Officer and others; that the revision of electoral rolls be undertaken de novo; that claims, objections and appeals in regard to the electoral roll be heard and disposed of in accordance with the rules; and that, no notification be issued under Section 15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calling for election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly, until the rolls were duly revised.2. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1982 is that very writ petition. It was withdrawn for hearing and final disposal...
Tag this Judgment!