Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Aug-19-2015
..... for filing of nomination paper for election of a member from a constituency. section 32 provides that a person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat, if he is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions of the constitution and the said act. 4. section 33 relates to the presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. the provision of section 33(1) being relevant, is reproduced below : 33. presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.(1 ..... it concerns the returned candidate. in the absence of these materials facts, the petition does not disclose any cause of action ?. it is also the objection raised that the election petition and the documents annexed are not verified in the manner prescribed by the code of civil procedure. 3. before proceeding to deal with the controversy in respect of pleading of material facts, the relevant provisions of the representation of the people act, 1951 in respect of the nomination of the candidates need to be seen, which are incorporated in part v of conduct of elections, and chapter i regarding nomination of candidates therein. section 30 of the said act provides for fixing of dates .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Jun-26-2015
..... that improper rejection of nomination is a ground for declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void under sec.102(1)(c) of the kerala panchayat raj act, 1994 in an election petition.11. on a reading of ext.p4 order passed by the 2nd respondent, it is categoric and clear that the 2nd respondent has not considered sec.34(1)(a) so as to consider the question of disqualification with reference to representation of the people act, 1951. for a proper analysis of the situation in this case, i think it is only appropriate to extract sec.34(1) sub- clauses (a) and (b)(i), hereunder:"4. disqualification of candidates.-- (1) a person shall be disqualified ..... 7 12. the period of disqualification of persons convicted for certain offences under the kerala panchayat raj act, 1994 is prescribed under sec.31, which reads as follows:"1. disqualification of persons convicted for certain offences.-- every person convicted of an offence punishable under chapter ix-a of the indian penal code, 1860, (central act 45 of 1860) or under any other provision of law mentioned in section 8 of the representation of the people act, 1951 (central act 43 of 1951) or under any law or rule relating to the infringement of the secrecy of an election, shall be disqualified from voting .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-22-2015
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Election Petition No. 2 of 2014 With I.A. No. 4623 of 2015 I.A. No. 4683 of 2015 I.A. No. 4684 of 2015 I.A. No. 5220 of 2015 ------- Dr. Suraj Mandal . Petitioner -Versus- 1. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Ray 2. Returning Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, 05, Kodarma Parliamentary Constituency, Kodarma ..... Opposite Parties ------- CORAM : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C.MISHRA ------- For the Petitioner : : M/s. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate For the Respondent No. 1 : : M/s. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent No. 2 : : M/s. Ashok Kumar Singh ------- Heard on 11.09.2015 Pronounced on 22.09.2015 ORDER H.C. Mishra, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the election petitioner and learned counsels for both the respondents on the point, that even if the election petitioner succeeds in proving the only point involved in the case that the polling agents of the petitioner were not allowed to function by the Presiding Officers in four Assembly segments, whether that shal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Apr-27-2015
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:27. 04.2015 W.P.(C) 2913/2014 & CM No.6035/2014 ONIKA MEHROTRA & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & CM No.6377/2014 NARENDER JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents AND + W.P.(C) 3051/2014 & CM No.6381/2014 SURENDER SOLANKI & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases: For the Petitioners : Mr A.S. Chandihok, Sr. Advocate with Mr Anil Amrit and Mr N. Tripathi in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Amit Gupta and Mr Anant A. Pavgi in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 & W.P.(C) 3051/2014. For the Respondents : Mr Subodh Kumar with Dr Kanchan Chawla for R- 1 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Laliet Kumar and Mr Vipin Malik for R-2 in W.P.(C) 2913/2014. Mr Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr Biji Rajesh, Mr Rajeev Yadav, Mr Anchit Sharma, Mr Abhay Pratap Singh for MCD in W.P.(C) 3048/2014 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jan-13-2015
..... candidates standing for elections, the question of second preference of vote is merely stated to be rejected as there is only one vote from elector. rest of the paragraphs of the petition were dealt by the respondent. the respondent ultimately submitted that the petition ought to be dismissed with compensatory costs. 9. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1 (1-a) whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of sections 82 and 86 of the representation of the people act, 1951? 2 (1-b ..... ), the dispute pertained to the election of six members to the rajya sabha by the elected members of the tamil nadu legislative assembly. the election was held on 28.06.1986. the appellant and respondents no.1 to 7 were the eight candidates in the field, all the nominations having been found valid. the 7th respondent secured nil first preference votes. the appellant secured 33 first preference votes. out of the 33 first preference votes cast in ..... quota are declared as elected; (c) if, at the end of the count the required number of candidates do not reach the quota, a process of exclusion or elimination is commenced and the said process of exclusion or elimination goes on until enough candidates have filled their quotas or until the successive eliminations have left just enough candidates to fill the vacancies. 103. chapter v of the rules dealing with counting of votes in parliamentary and assembly constituencies does .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-21-2015
..... be corrupt practice for the purposes of this act:- (1) bribery as defined in clause (1) of section 123 of the representation of people act, 1951. (central act xliii of 1951) (2) undue influence as defined in clause (2) of the said section."39. from the aforesaid provisions, it is clear as day that concept of undue influence as is understood in the context of section 123(2) of the 1951 act has been adopted as it is a deemed conception for all purposes. thus, a candidate is bound to provide the necessary information at the time of filing nomination paper and for the said purpose, the ..... made the subject of a verbal appeal or persuasion by one member of the electoral college to another and particularly to those in the congress fold." after so stating, the court drew distinction between section 18 of the 1952 act and section 123 of the 1951 act. it referred to chapter ix a of the indian penal code, 1860 which deals with offences relating to elections and adverted to the issue of undue influence at elections as enumerated under section 171-c. the argument that was advanced ..... have been included in these clauses."63. in shiv kripal singh (supra), as has been stated earlier, the court had referred to the objects and reasons attached to the bill, which ultimately resulted in enactment of chapter ix-a of the i.p.c.64. in charan lal sahu v. giani zail singh and anr.[52]., the court after referring to section 171c opined thus: "the gravamen of this section is that there must be interference or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-16-2015
..... court subsequent to bharati case.74. the earliest of them is indira nehru gandhi case (supra). by the constitution 39th amendment article 329a was inserted. clauses (4) and (5) of the said article sought to exclude the complaints of violation of the provisions of the representation of the people act, 1951 from scrutiny of any forum whatsoever in so far as such complaints pertain to the election of the prime minister or the speaker of the lok sabha. the question whether such an amendment violated any one of the basic features of the constitution arose ..... by ensuring, that the participants have no conflict of interest. obviously, the final selecting body would not be bound by the opinion experienced, but would be obliged to keep the opinion tendered in mind, while finalizing the names of the nominated candidates.185. it is also difficult to appreciate the wisdom of the parliament, to introduce two lay persons, in the process of selection and appointment of judges to the higher judiciary, and to simultaneously vest with them a power of veto. the second proviso ..... [195]. adm jabalpur vs. s.s. shukla etc. etc. air1976sc1207[196]. laurence h. tribe (american constitutional law) second edition, page 2 of chapter 1 approaches to constitutional analysis - that all lawful power derives from the people and must be held in check to preserve their freedom is the oldest and most central tenet of american constitutionalism. at the outset, only a small number of explicit substantive limitations on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-10-2015
..... representation of the people (third amendment) act, 2002 (4 of 2002). by the said amendment, a candidate contesting an election (to which the representation of the people act, 1951 applies) is required to furnish certain information at the time of filing of nomination. in that context, justice p.v. reddi examined in some detail the nature of the right to vote in the background of the observations made in two earlier decisions of this court, in n.p. ponnuswami v. returning officer, namakkal constituency, namakkal, salem, air1952sc64and jyoti basu & others v. debi ghosal & others, (1982) 1 ..... required under article 243b[4]., a three tier panchayat system at the village, samiti and district level is established under the act with bodies known as gram panchayat, panchayat samiti and zila parishad. part v chapter xx of the act deals with provisions relating to elections to the panchayats.8. section 162 of the act stipulates that panchayat areas shall be divided into wards[5]..9. section 165[6]. declares that every person entitled ..... any transaction of money advanced or borrowed from any officer or servant or any gram panchayat; or (i) fails to pay any arrears of any kind due by him to the gram panchayat, panchayat samiti or zila parishad or any gram panchayat, panchayat samiti or zila parishad subordinate thereto or any sum recoverable from him in accordance with the chapters and provisions of this act, within three months after a special notice in accordance with the rules made in this .....
Tag this Judgment!