Court : Kerala
The above election petition has been filed under Sections 80, 81, 83, 84 and 100(1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" challenging the election of the respondent from No.127 of Varkala Legislative Assembly Constituency in the General Election held on 13.04.2011. 2. Petitioner, as a candidate, submitted two nomination papers, numbered as ARO-13 and ARO-14, to contest the election from the above Constituency. He submitted his nomination as a candidate of the Bahujan Samaj Party, for short, the 'BSP', a registered National Political Party. Scrutiny of the nomination papers were conducted by the Returning Officer on 28.03.2011. The Returning Officer rejected both the nomination papers of the petitioner holding that the affidavit in Form No.26, though signed by the Notary Public, was not duly attested since the stamp of the required value has not been affixed on such affidavit. Certified copy of the order rejecting the nomination paper ARO-13 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1987Guj33
B.K. Mehta, J. 1. Since this group of seven Letters Patent Appeals relates to the elections of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan, and a common question of law going to the root of the matter arises in these Letters Patent Appeals, we intend to dispose them of by this common judgment.2. In order to appreciate the two broad contentions, which have been raised in each of the respective appeals, we may get out shortly a few facts relevant and material for our purposes so as to enable us to appreciate these contentions in proper perspective.L. P. A. No. 382/85 :3. Respondent No. 1. which is a Cooperative Marketing Society, moved this Court by Special Civil Application No. 5620/85 for appropriate writs, orders and directions enjoining the Authorised Officer respondent No. 2 herein, appointed for the purposes of elections of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan respondent No. 3 herein, to include the names of the members of the Managing Committee of the Petitioner-Socie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1983)1GLR495
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. The petitioners who are residents of Ahmedabad challenge the election of the first respondent Shri Pranabkumar Kamda Kinker Mukharjee on the following grounds:(i) the name of the first respondent was wrongly entered in the electoral roll even though he was not 'ordinarily resident' in the Sabarrnati constituency of the City of Ahmedabad;(ii) Rule 13 (2) of the Registration of Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called 'the 1960 Rules') is ultra vires the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter called 'the R. P. Act, 1950') as well as Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it restricts the right to challenge the inclusion of a name in the roll of a person whose name is already included in that roll and the requirement of the same being countersigned by another person whose name is already included in that 'part' of the roll in which the name objected to appears;(iii) contrary to Section 19-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1989(3)BomCR641; (1989)91BOMLR829
C.S. Dharmadhikari, J.1. As all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 943 of 1988 i.e. Shri Jagdamba Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as to the Act) as a Processing Society. It has set up a sugar factory with crushing capacity of 850 m.t. per day. The area of operation of the society extends to Karjat Taluka of Ahmednagar district. At the relevant time the society had 4200 individual members and 26 Co-operative Society members. The said society is a specified society within the meaning of section 73-G of the said Act. In the elections held on 26-3-1983 the Directors of this specified society were elected. One Shri K.R. Deshmukh was elected to the Board of Directors both from Producers constituency as well as from the Co-operative Societies constituency and, therefore,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (Civil) No 152 of 2023 Shelly Oberoi & Anr .... Appellant(s) Versus Office of Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Ors ....Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution has been invoked for seeking diverse reliefs pertaining to the constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi following the elections which took place on 4 December 2022. These elections were held to elect 250 Councillors. The first petitioner is a prospective candidate for the post of Mayor. Though over two months have elapsed since the date of the election, the election of the Mayor has not be held. 2 Chapter II of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 19571 deals with the establishment of Corporations. Section 35(1) provides that a Corporation shall at its first meeting in each year elect one of its members to be the Chairperson, who is known as the Mayor, and an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC599; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)611; JT2002(1)SC15; 2002(1)SCALE61; (2002)2SCC410; [2002]1SCR63
These appeals by special leave are directed against the order dated 21.7.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Jabalpur in Election Petition No. 3 of 1998 as well as against the Order dated 31.1.2001 in the said Election Petition. The appellant is the successful candidate from Chhindwara Lok Sabha Constituency in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent filed an Election Petition, which was registered as Election Petition 3 of 1998 impugning the election of the appellant alleging corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Representation of Peoples Act (hereinafter referred to as "The Act"), in as much as the appellant is alleged to have incurred or authorised expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act. It may be stated, apart from the aforesaid allegation of corrupt practice, there was no other allegation in the Election Petition. The appellant had won the election by defeating his nearest rival by 1,53,398 votes. In the Election Petition the appellant filed two appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 64(1996)DLT56
M.K. Sharma, J. (1) This Election Petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenging the election of respondent No. I to the House of the People from the Sadar Lok Sabha constituency on various grounds including that of the allegations of corrupt practice. (2) Before I advert to the issue arising for my consideration in the present petition in respect of which submission has been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner it would be necessary to delineate the facts giving rise to the present petition. (3) The President of India issued a notification under Section 14 of the Act to hold General Elections for the purpose of constituting the 11th Lok Sabha. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification issued by the President of India the Election Commission issued public notice under Section 31 of the Act for holding elections for the aforesaid purpose. Under the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The present election petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the election of respondent, under Section 80 read with Sections 81, 100 and 101 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act'), from 05-Hoshiarpur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency.2. In pursuance of notification dated 17.4.2009 issued by the Election Commission of India, the general elections to Lok Sabha of 05-Hoshiarpur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency along with 8 other Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Punjab, were to be held. The date of polling was 13.5.2009 and the date of counting and declaration of the results was 16.5.2009. The petitioner, respondent and 10 other candidates, were the candidates from 05-Hoshiarpur (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, after the last date fixed for withdrawal of nomination papers. The petitioner contested the election on the symbol of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), whereas the respondent contested the election on the symbol of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR2004Cal27
ORDERAmitava Lala, J.1. The point is whether a Scheduled Caste candidate having been elected from general or unreserved seat of a Gram Panchayat can be a Pradhan of such Gram Panchayat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate or not. Factually there are altogether three successful scheduled caste candidates. Out of the three candidates two won from the reserved seats when another won from unreserved or general seat;2. Mr. Utpal Majumdar. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that whenever a seat is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate there should be true reflection of representation of such community. A Scheduled Caste candidate having been represented from general seat cannot be the true representative of the Scheduled Caste community. Moreover, there was no scope of enquiry of the candidature of such Scheduled Caste candidate when the nomination paper had been filed by him as a general candidate.3. He has drawn my attention to the situation of the grass-root level w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1997(1)MPLJ152
ORDERN.K. Jain, J. 1. This revision petition filed under section 441-F(2) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), is directed against the order dated 29-2-1996 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Dewas in M. C. C. No. 4/95 declaring the election of the petitioner as Councillor to the Municipal Corporation, Dewas, as void.2. Amongst others the petitioner as also the respondent contested election for the Office of the Councillor of the Municipal Corporation, Dewas from ward No. 5. The petitioner was declared elected on 5-12-1994. The respondent filed election petition against the petitioner under section 441 of the Act challenging latter's election on the ground, one : that she committed corrupt practices, and; two : that she was not qualified to contest the election inasmuch as her name appeared simultaneously as a voter in two wards i.e., Nos. 5 and 7. Court below after taking evidence of the parties and on evaluation thereof negatived ...
Tag this Judgment!