Court : Patna
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Vaidehi Raman Prasad Singh for the petitioner, learned junior counsel to Government Pleader No. VIII for respondent No. 1 (The State of Bihar), and Mr. J.P. Shukla for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Bihar School Examination Board and its functionaries).2. Two petitioners have joined this writ petition to set aside letter No. 5415, dated 7.11.2001 (Annexure 12 series) to the extent it concerns the petitioners and for a further direction to the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') to issue marks-sheets and the certificates of the petitioners, results whereof have already been published.3. According to the writ petition, the petitioners had appeared at the Matriculation Examination of 1999 held by the Board as a private candidates of N.K. High School, Brahampur, Masaurhi, district Patna. Petitioner No. 1 (Ajit Kumar) was allotted Roll No. 938, and petitioner No. 2 (Dip Himanshu Dip) was allotted Roll No. 937. Their Admit-cards are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF AUGUST, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO.648 OF2023GM-RES) BETWEEN:1. SRI. RAUFUDDIN KACHERIWALAY S/O.MD. YOUSUFUDDIN, AGED ABOUT48YEARS, CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE, HAJ BHAVAN, SY. No.57/17, THIRUMENAHALLI NEXT TO KNS COLLEGE, HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 064, R/AT DOOR No.8-10-45/2, NEAR RANGA MANDIR, STADIUM ROAD, BIDAR-585 404.2. SRI. SYED NASEER HUSSAIN S/O. SYED HAFEEZ, AGED ABOUT YEARS, MEMBER, KARNATAKA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE, HAJ BHAVAN, SY. No.57/17, THIRUMENAHALLI NEXT TO KNS COLLEGE, HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 064, R/AT No.164, 2ND CROSS, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, BELLARY DISTRICT-583 102.3. SRI. MOHAMMAD SHAFI S/O. SHEKABBA, AGED ABOUT YEARS, MEMBER, 2 KARNATAKA STATE HAJ COMMITTEE, HAJ BHAVAN, SY. No.57/17, THIRUMENAHALLI NEXT TO KNS COLLEGE, HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 064.4. DR. MOHAMMED KABEER AHMED S/O. LATE ABDUL GANI, AGED ABOUT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR53; (1995)97BOMLR867
M.S. Rane, J.1. This petition is being disposed of on an application submitted by and on behalf of the 1st respondent under section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the said Act') for non-joinder of the necessary party, namely Subhash Martand Parkar, one of the duly nominated candidates for the constituency in question and who was later on appointed as Election Agent, after he withdrew his nomination, by returned candidate, - the 1st respondent herein, and who acted as an Election Agent for the 1st respondent, as mandated by the provisions of section 82(2) of the said Act.2. This petition is filed in the year 1990. Recording of the evidence is over. The application in terms aforesaid is moved at the stage of its arguments.3. Although a detailed reference in respect of factual aspects may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application, certain facts as are considered relevant and necessary have be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. This petition has been filed by the sole petitioner, namely, Shri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, under the provisions of Section 80 and 80-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity) calling in question the election of the returned candidate, namely, Shri Awadhesh Kumar Singh (sole respondent) as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from 231 Gaya Muffasil Assembly Constituency, which was held in October, 2005,2. The facts of this case are that the Additional Collector, Gaya, who was appointed as Returning Officer of the election in question, issued a notification on 23-9-2005 with respect to the detailed programme of the Assembly election in 231 Gaya-Muffasil Assembly Constituency. The last date for filing of nomination paper was 30-9-2005 and altogether seventeen candidates filed their nomination papers before the Returning Officer by 30-9-2005 fixed for filing the nomination papers of the said candidates. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1964Raj126
Modi, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal, Jaipur City, dated the are April, 1963, by which the election of the appellant, Shri Shiv Ram, to the Legislative Assembly of this State, at the last General Election was declared to be void. Both the appellant and the respondent, along with certain otner persons with whom we are not concerned in this appeal, stood as candidates for election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Mahuwa Constituency. The appellant was declared successful on the 26th February, 1962, and the respondent was defeated.Thereupon, the latter filed the election petition out of which this appeal arises on the 11th April, 1962. Tne sole ground on which this petition was filed was that on the date of the election, the appellant was not qualified to stand for the same as he was of less than the minimum age of 25 years prescribed for this purpose by Article 13 of the Constitution. According to the respondent, the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(3)BomCR585
N.P. Chapalgaonker, J.1. An interesting point has been raised in this petition whether a candidate who has lost election and has filed Election Petition under section 15 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 succeeds in proving that returned candidate was not qualified to be elected, would be entitled for a declaration that he is elected in place of the returned candidate.2. Election to Village Panchayat, Wadule in Newasa taluka took place on 19-6-1989 and respondent No. 5 herein was declared elected for Ward No. 3. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 5 is a Christian and does not belong to any of the recognised Scheduled Castes. Since the seat is reserved for the Scheduled Castes respondent No. 5 is not entitled to contest the said election. On this ground, the election came to be challenged by way of Election Petition bearing No. 2 of 1989 before the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Newasa. It was contended by the present petitioner in that Election Petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1969SC604; [1969]2SCR90
Shah, J.1. Vishwanath Reddy was declared elected to the Mysore Legislative Assembly from the Yadgiri constituency at the poll held in February 1967. Nadgouda who was a contesting candidate filed a petition before the High Court of Mysore for an order setting aside the election of Reddy on the ground that Reddy was disqualified from standing as a candidate for election and for an order declaring that he--Nadgouda--be declared elected. The High Court rejected the petition. In appeal, this Court held that at the date of nomination Reddy was disqualified from standing as a candidate and passed an order on July 19, 1968 that-'. . . . the appeal is therefore allowed, the election of the first respondent is declared void. In this view of the matter the votes cast in favour of the first respondent be treated as thrown away. As there was no other contesting candidate we declare the appellant (election petitioner) elected to the seat from the Yadgiri constituency.'2. Reddy then applied for revie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC905; JT2001(2)SC114; (2001)2MLJ45(SC); 2001(1)SCALE471; (2001)3SCC290; [2001]1SCR527
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.03.2000 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Election Petition No. 2/98, setting aside the election of the appellant from 61-Nachan (S.C.) Assembly Constituency and declaring it void, this appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short `the RPA'), calling in question the correctness and validity of the said judgment and order of the High Court.2. The material and relevant facts, to the extent they are considered necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are set out as under.3. The respondent Dile Ram filed the election petition challenging the election of the appellant from 61-Nachan (S.C.) Assembly Constituency in Himachal Pradesh, pleading that the nomination papers were filed by the appellant, the respondent and others. He was set up as a candidate by the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and the appellant was a candidate sponsored by the Indian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC208; (1977)1SCC771; [1977]1SCR490
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. These are two appeals under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act, arising out of an election dispute concerning the election held on the 5th and 8th of March, 1972 to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Purchur Constituency. Six persons had filed nominations for standing as candidates at the election. Four of them why were impleaded as respondents 2 to 5 in the election petition,(sic) w' drew in time and did not contest the election. The only two persons left in the field for a straight contest were the two appellants in the (sic) appeals namely M. Narayana Rao, appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1974-hereinafter referred to as Rao or respondent No. 1 (sic) brevity, the respondent) according to his position in the election (sic) tion and G. Venkata Reddy, appellant in Civil Appeal 686 of 1974 hereinafter to be called Reddy or the election petitioner. Rao was declared elected on the 11th March, 1972 by a m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2001Kant77; ILR2001KAR2742; 2001(3)KarLJ266
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. This application under Section 87 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short), read with Order 6, Rule 16; Order 7, Rule 11(a) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' in short) is filed for respondent 1 ('R-1' for short) praying that for the reasons sworn to in his accompanying affidavit, the pleadings in paragraphs 6 to 21 of the election petition be struck out as being 'unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and tending to prejudice and embarrass and consequently reject the petition as not disclosing the cause of action in the interest of justice and equity'. It may be mentioned here that 'paragraphs 6 to 21 of the election petition' stated in the application has to be, admittedly, read as paragraphs 6 to 11 of the election petition as there are only 11 paragraphs in the petition.3. As counter to this application, petitioner has filed his affidavit stating that the petition does disclose the cause of action, and...
Tag this Judgment!