Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP58
M. Hidayatullah, C.J. 1. This appeal arises out of an election in the Sehore double-member constituency to the Legisla-tive Assembly of this State. The election took place on 25th February, 1957 and the results were declared on 1st March, 1957. Originally, six persons had offered to contest the two seats, but one of them (Amarchand) withdrew, leaving five in the field. Of these Umraosingh and Mannulal contested the reserved seat, while the remaining three, Inayatullah, Mahajan, and Nandlal contested the general seat. As a result of the poll declared on 1st March, the appellant Inayatullah was declared elected to the general seat while Umraosingh was also declared elected to the reserved seat. The result of the poll was as follows : Umraosingh 23,757Votes(Reserved) Inapatullah 20,696,,(General) C. Mahajan 20,616,,(General) Mannulal 16,599'(Reserved Nandlal 8,997,,(General)) 2. The election was questioned by Diwan-chand Mahajan alone. One of the other candidates Mannulal in his reply rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2005(6)ALT1
ORDERJ. Chelameswar, J.1. These four writ appeals arise out of a common order dated 7-7-2005 of a learned Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.18357 of 2004,407,426 and 2471 of 2005. The parties are the same in the last three of the above mentioned four writ petitions whereas in the 1st writ petition only five of the said parties are parties.2. The facts leading to this litigation are as follows:The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') in the last of the above three writ petitions i.e., Palle Sitaramulu Goud and the respondents 4 to 8 in the above mentioned three writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') were elected as members of the Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies of Shameerpet Mandal on 3-7-2001. Under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act'), Panchayats a defined expression under Article 243(d) at various levels as contemplated under Article 243B are created. One of them being Mandal Parishad defined under sub-sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(3)ALLMR606; 2006(4)BomCR392
Khanwilkar A.M., J.1. This petition is filed for declaration that the election of the respondent No. 1 as candidate from 'O4' Deogad Assembly Constituency in the general election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held on 13th October, 2004 as Official candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as 'BJP') representing the alliance of Shivsena-BJP, be declared illegal, null and void.2. The notice in Form No. 1 declaring the Election programme was published on September 15, 2004. The date of filing nomination was from 15th September 2004 till 22nd September, 2004. The scrutiny of nomination was to be undertaken on 23rd September, 2004 and the list of valid candidates after due scrutiny was to be published thereafter. Under the said Notification, date of withdrawal of nomination was 25th September, 2004. On that date, besides the petitioner, the six respondents herein remained in the fray for polling to be held on 13th October, 2004 between 7.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2044; JT1999(2)SC347; 1999(2)KLT18(SC); 1999(2)SCALE222; (1999)3SCC737; [1999]2SCR99; 1999(1)LC621(SC)
R.P. Sethi, J.1. The appellant a candidate of the C.P.I. (M) party contested and lost election from No. 99 Mararikulam Legislative Assembly Constitutency in the State of Kerala by a margin of 1965 votes. The successful candidate was the respondent No. 1 belonging to the Indian National Congress. Not satisfied with the result of the election, the appellant filed Election Petition No. 11/1996 in the High Court of Kerala mainly on the grounds of corrupt practices and illegalities in the counting of ballot papers. He prayed for declaration that the election of the 1st respondent was void and that he was duly elected. Instead of filling any written statement, the respondent No. 1 filed preliminary objections which were made the basis of framing the following issues :1. Whether the petition has been presented in compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act?2. Whether the absence of an affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices in the petition is fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC730; 1999(1)ALLMR704; JT1999(1)SC21; 1999(1)SCALE1; (1999)1SCC642; [1998]Supp3SCR463; 1999(1)LC312(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 calls in question the judgment and order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dated 12th March, 1996. Since, the controversy in this appeal only centers around Issue No. 2, which reads thus:Whether the petitioner proves that the Returning Officer was in error in declaring 71 ballot papers, referred to in para 12 of the petition as exhausted and he should have taken in consideration the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th preference indicated in those ballot papers, allegedly castled in favour of the petitioner?We need to refer only to such of the facts as are necessary for consideration of the findings recorded by the learned single Judge in the impugned order on that issue.2. The Returning Officer declared the final list of contesting candidates on 26th May, 1994 after scrutinising the nomination papers, on the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature. The election was held on 15t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC547; JT2005(11)SC408; (2005)2SCC188
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The appellants in CA No.6622 of 2003 and CA No.6750 of 2003 are aggrieved by the dismissal of their Election Petition Nos. 1 and 2 of 2002 by the Bench of the High Court of Bombay on preliminary issues without any trial and have filed these two statutory appeals under section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short 'the Act' ) against two separate judgments of the same Bench of Bombay High Court. Since common questions of law and facts arose in both the appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. Facts of the two appeals being practically similar in nature are briefly stated:-.In the Election Petition being Election Petition No.1 of 2002 of Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar out of which C.A. No. 6622/2003 arises, the appellant challenged the validity of the Assembly election of Siolim Constituency, Goa under section 86 of the Act in which he contested but the respondent No.1 was declared elected. The elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD97
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against order dated 21-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMP No. 15303 of 2006 in WP No. 12308 of 2006 whereby Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition i.e., Election-cum-Returning Officer, East Godavari District and District Collector, East Godavari District, have been directed to accept the nomination paper of the writ petitioner Malladi Rajendera Prasad (Respondent No. l herein) for contesting election to Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency of Tallarevu.2. In the writ petition filed by him, Respondent No. l averred that as per the schedule of election notified by the State Election Commission (appellant herein), the last date for filing nomination paper was 17-6-2006 and 18-6-2006 was fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers. He filed nomination on 17-6-2006. The same was rejected by the Election-cum-Returning Officer, Kakinada on the ground that his name was not reflected in the electoral rolls of Tallarevu. Respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All128
ORDERU.K. Dhaon, J.1. The petitioner whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer has filed the instant petition under Section 81 read with Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as the Act) challenging the election of 13th Lok Sabha from 20 LucknowParliamentary Constituency which was held in the year 1999 in which the respondent was declared elected.2. On 7th January, 2000 notice was issued by this Court to the respondent for filing written statement. On behalf of the respondent an application under Section 86 of the Act read with Order 6, Rule 16, Order 7, Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved with a prayer that the present election petition be dismissed in limine as the petitioner has no right to file the petition under Section 81 of the Act. It was also stated, inter alia, that the petitioner was not a 'duly nominated candidate' as no affidavit was filed by him, as required, and as such he had no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
: 1.This petition is filed under Section 81 r/w Section 100 (1)(a) and (d) (i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act 1951') to declare the election of the 1st respondent to 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency to be null and void and set aside the same and further declare that the petitioner has been duly elected as Member of 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency under Section 84 of the Act 1951. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present petition may be delineated as follows: 2.1.The election petitioner is a contesting candidate to 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency. In the said election, the petitioner was fielded from Indian National Congress Party and the 1st respondent was fielded from Telugu Desam Party. The election to the said Assembly Constituency was held on 16-04- 2009. The 1st respondent polled 56,014 votes and she was declared as Member of 006 Khanapur (S.T.) Assembly Constituency. The petitioner got 29,582 votes ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
ORDER1. This is an application filed by the first respondent in the Election Petition (ELP No.4/2009) under Order 14 Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order 6 Rule 16 of CPC. Election Petition No.4 of 2009 was presented by the first respondent in this application under Section 81 read with S.100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) and Section 129 of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 (for short RP Act). The petition was presented on 29.6.2009. Thereafter, the matter was assigned to this court by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. The matter pertains to the challenge made to the election of the present applicant (who is the first respondent in the election petition) as the successful candidate for the Tiruchirappalli Parlimentary Constituency (No.24). 2.Originally orders were reserved on 26.2.2010. Subsequently, it was posted on 11.2.2011 for further clarification. After getting certain points clarified, it was reserved for orders.3.It is an admitted case of both parties that the Election Commission had issue...
Tag this Judgment!