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 It was withdrawn for hearing and final disposal...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!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi265
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.(1) This is a petition under Article G 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of Shri Mohinder Singh Gill, a Congress candidate from the '13-Ferozepore Parliamentary Constituency, Punjab' and Shri Nasib Singh, a voter and supporter of petitioner No. 1, for quashing the notification dated 22nd March, 1977, issued by the Election Commission of India, ordering the cancellation of poll held in the aforesaid Constituency and ordering the repoll in the entire aforesaid Parliamentary Constituency. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for directing the Chief Election Commissioner and Shri Gurbachan Singh, a Deputy Commissioner and Returning Officer, Ferozepore, (respondents 1 and 2 respectively) to declare the result of the election. In the alternative, it was prayed that writ of mandamus may be issued directing respondents No. 1 to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 64A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1963Cal218,66CWN917
P.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution. It raises a short but interesting question of election law and procedure. The short point is whether under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the Returning Officer is either a necessary or a proper party to an election petition.2. The order against which this Rule was directed was an order of the Election Tribunal dismissing the application of the present petitioner, Sri Dwijendra Lal Sen Gupta, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 90 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for adding the Returning Officer Sri Ajita Kanjan Mukherjee as a respondent and for issuing a notice on him as such.3. The Election Tribunal relied on (i) the Surat Municipality Case, 2 Doabia's Election Cases, 340 and (2) Abdul Quadir Siddiqui v. Abul Hasan Natique, 1 Doabia's Election Cases 324 and dismissed the application for adding the Returning Officer as a party to the election pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)121PLR633
R.S. Mongia, J.1. This election petition was filed by the defeated candidate Bakhshish Singh challenging the election of respondent Jai Singh, the returned candidate from 12 Nilokheri Assembly Constituency (Haryana). Prayer has been made to see aside the election of respondent Jai Singh being void and the seat of 12 Nilokheri Assembly Constituency be declared vacant. The facts and the grounds for challenging the election of the respondent as averred in the petition may be noticed.2. The notification for holding Haryana Legislative Assembly Election was issued by the Governor of Haryana under Section 15 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) calling upon the various Assembly Constituencies in the State of Haryana to elect members of Haryana Legislative Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Act. the following Schedule was notified by Shri D.R. Dhingra, the Returning Officer for the 12 Nilokheri Assembly Constituency:-'(a) 27.3.1996 to 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1981MP26; 1981MPLJ126
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the election to the Rajya Sabha held on 27-6-1980.2. According to the petitioner, he wanted to contest the election for the Rajya Sabha and for that purpose had filed the nomination paper. He filed his nomination paper on 23-6-1980 after depositing the security amount as required. According to him, on 25-6-1980 when the nomination papers were scrutinized the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner on the ground that it was not properly filled in as it did not bear the signature of the proposer. Order not filed with the petition.3. The only ground urged in this petition by the petitioner is that Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act which requires the nomination paper to be signed by one proposer who is an elector of the Constituency is unconstitutional as under Article 84 of the Constitution a citizen of India who holds the necessary qualifications prescribed in this article is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1995HP145
ORDERA.L. Vaidya, J. 1. The present petitioner, Shri Rajinder Zar, unsuccessfully contested the H. P. Legislative Assembly Election from 28-Nadaunta Constituency, which was held on 9th November, 1993 and the result was declared on 28th November, 1993. Respondent No. 1, Shri Manjit Singh Dogra, was the elected candidate, while, respondent No. 2, Shri Ram Rattan Sharma, was another defeated candidate. The said election has been challenged through the present election petition preferred under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act') on various grounds. It has been prayed that the election of respondent No. 1 to the H. P. Assembly from 28-Nadaunta Constituency on account of corrupt practices by respondents Nos. I and 3 be set aside. It has also been prayed that the Court may order to re-count the total voles cast in the constituency arid to make such order as it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The full partic...
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 : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1981Raj251; 1980()WLN601; 1980()WLN615
ORDERS.K. Mal Lodha, J. 1. By this order, I propose to decide issue No. 2, which was framed on October 10, 1980. It reads as under:'Whether the Returning Officer is a necessary party to the present election petition?'In this petition under Sections 80 and 31 of the Representation of the People Act(No. XLIII of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the election-petitioner has prayed that the election of the respondent Shri Udai Ram Dhakad as member of the Legislative Assembly may be declared void. It may be stated here that in the petition, Shri Udai Ram Dhakad has only been impleaded as a respondent. The case of the election-petitioner is that the nomination paper filed by him was wrongly rejected, bythe Returning Officer. Only three persons remained in contest. The petitioner has called m question the election of the returned candidate Shri Udai Ram Dhakad (respondent) on the ground that the Returning Officer has wrongly rejected his nomination paper as it was complete in all ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3127; JT2006(8)SC1; 2006(8)SCALE257; (2006)7SCC1
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.Background1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks to challenge amendments made in the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, 'the RP Act', 1951') through Representation of People (Amendment) Act 40 of 2003 which came into force from 28th August, 2003. By the said Amendment Act 2003, the requirement of 'domicile' in the State Concerned for getting elected to the Council of States is deleted which according to the petitioner violates the principle of Federalism, a basic structure of the Constitution.In the writ petition, there is a further challenge to the amendments in Sections 59, 94 and 128 of the RP Act, 1951 by which Open Ballet System is introduced which, according to the petitioner, violates the principle of 'secrecy' which, according to the petitioner, is the essence of free and fair elections as also the voter's freedom of expression which is the basic feature of the Constitution and the subject matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4603; JT2003(Suppl2)SC613; 2003(3)KLT1081(SC); 2003(8)SCALE165; (2003)8SCC498
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Whether non-publication of a final electoral roll would render a general election invalid in law is the core question involved in this appeal filed by the Appellant herein under Section 116A of the Representation of the People-Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951 Act') which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated 7.3.2002 passed in E.P. No. 8 of 2001 whereby and whereunder his election petition was dismissed.BACKGROUND FACT.:2. The election in question was held for Kozhikode II Legislative Assembly Constituency on 10.05.2001. The first, second, third and fourth respondents herein contested the said election. The appellant herein was the election agent of the second respondent. The said election petition came to be filed in the following circumstances:3. A preliminary electoral roll (mother roll) was published in 1999 which was revised on 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001 purported to be in terms of continuous and special revision scheme. O...
Tag this Judgment!