Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :5. 04.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN Election Petition No.12 of 2011 M.Jayanthi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Election Commission of India, rep. by its Chief Election Commissioner, Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delh001. 2.The Chief Electoral Officer / Secretary to Government, Public (Elections-III), Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The District Election Officer / District Collector, Villupuram District, Villupuram. 4.The Returning Officer / District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, 78, Rishivanthiyam Assembly Constituency, Villupuram. 5.Vijayakant 6.S.Sivaraj 7.M.Vijayakanth 8.P.natarajan 9.M.Ramajayam 10.J.Selvaraj 11.B.Rajasundaram 12.K.Senthil 13.V.Murugan .. Respondents (R.1 and R.2 have been struck off as per order dated 4.10.2012 made in O.A.Nos.666 and 667 of 2012). (R.4 has been struck of as per order dated 3.12.2012 made in O.A.No.918 of 2012) Election petition has been filed under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1988)90BOMLR661
K.N. Patil, J.1. This is an election petition calling in question election of the Respondent to Parliament on the ground specified under Sub-section (1)(c) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'). Petitioner prays for a declaration that the election of respondent is void on the ground that the nomination paper of the petitioner was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.2. The election petition was originally filed by Advocate Shri Shivajirao Rangrao Chede, as an elector, Mr. Scindia, learned Counsel for the petitioner Chede, informed the Court that the petitioner was not in a position to prosecute the petition in view of his mental deranged condition. The Court, therefore, directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette requiring some-one from the constituency to come forward to proceed with the petition. Accordingly, the present petitioner Kondappa Sadashiv Kore, who was a candidate in the election, filed an applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR544
Jamdar, J.1. The petitioner, who is an elector in the Sironcha (Scheduled Tribe Reserved) Constituency of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, has filed this petition under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of respondent No. 2 Penta Rama Talandi to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Sironcha Constituency, on the ground that the nomination paper of respondent No. 3 was wrongly rejected.2. The petitioner is the cousin brother of respondent No. 3 and was one of the four proposers, who proposed the candidature of respondent No. 3.3. The election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Sironcha Constituency was held in May 1980. For the said election, last date of filing nomination papers was May 2, 1980, the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed on May 3, 1980, the date of withdrawal of candidature was May 5, 1980, and the poll was scheduled to be held on May 28, 1980.4. Sironcha constituency was reserved for scheduled tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1954SC513; 1954(2)BLJR436; (1954)IIMLJ379(SC); [1955]1SCR509
Ghulam Hasan, J.1. This appeal preferred under article 136 of the Constitution against the order, dated May 4, 1951, of the Election Tribunal, Allahabad, setting aside the election of Sri Vashist Narain Sharma to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, raises two questions for consideration. The first question is whether the nomination of one of the rival candidates, Dudh Nath, was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the second, whether the result of the election was thereby materially affected. 2. Eight candidates filed nominations to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Ghazipur (South East) Constituency No. 345, three withdrew their candidature and the contest was confined to the remaining five. The votes secured by these candidates were as follows :- 1. Vashist Narain Sharma 128682. Vireshwar Nath Rai 109963. Mahadeo 39504. Dudh Nath 19835. Gulab Chand 17683. They were arrayed in the election petition as respondents Nos. 1 to 5 respectively. The first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2001All379
S.K. Sen, C. J. 1. In the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner who is a sitting M.L.A. and is detained in Centra] Jail, Naini. district Allahabad, has prayed for following reliefs :(i) Issue a suitable writ order or direction calling for records and quashing the notification for election schedule to be held on 7th April. 2001 for Legislative Assembly, U. P. from Hydergarh Constituency in district Barbanki. ORAlternatively suitable arrangement by means of order or direction in the nature of writ be issued so that the petitioner may contest the election as a candidate from the aforesaid Hydergarh Constituency in district Bara-banki. (ii) To issue any other writ order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iii) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. The short facts involved in this writ petition, infer alia, are that on 17th March. 2001 the petitioner submitted his application through Superintendent. Central J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. By means of this petitions 8O and 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the petitioner who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, has questioned the election of respondent No. 1, Sri Ram Tahal Choudhary from 49, Ranchi Lok Sabha General Parliamentary Constituency held in the month of May, 1991. The petitioner has also prayed that he be declared to be duly elected from the aforesaid Constituency.2. The petitioner along with respondent Nos. 1 to 45 filed nomination for contesting the election. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected on 17-6-1991 as he secured highest number of votes.3. The facts of the case are not in dispute and hence the petition is being disposed of without taking any evidence.4. The petitioner in paragraphs 4 to 17 of the election petition has setout the grounds on , which the election of respondent No. 1 has been challenged and it will be convenient to quote the said paragraphs as here-under:That at the time of delivery of their respective n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960AP470
Satyanarayana Raju, J. 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to quash the order of the Election Tribunal, Elluru (Andhra) in Election Petition No. 7 of 1955 dated 6-4-19562. In order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to state the following facts: The petitioner and respondents 2 to 10 filed their nomination papers for election of the Andhra Legislative Assembly from the double-member constituency of Salur in Srikakulam District. Of the two seats, one was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and the other was a general constituency. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 filed their nominations to the reserved seat. Respondents 4 to 10 were nominated to the general seat. On 7-1-1955 the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers, the petitioner filed objections to the nomination of the 2nd respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. The Reluming Officer dismissed the petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi438
H.R. Khanna, C.J. (1) Dr. B. N. Ahuja by means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the issuance of a writ to quash the decision of the scrutiny officer whereby the nomination paper for the election of Shri G. S. Pathak, Vice-President of India, respondent No. 1, to the office of the Chancellor of the University of Delhi was held to be valid. Prayer has also been made in the petition for declaring Dr. Govind Rai Chaudhry, the only other contestant to the office, as having been duly elected to the said office. The respondents named in the petition, besides Shri Pathak, are the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Delhi.(2) Delhi University was established under the provisions of the Delhi University Act, 1922 (Act No. Viii of 1922). Section 8 of that Act specifies the persons who shall be officers of the University. The Chancellor tops the list of those officers. Section 9 of the Act, as it originally stood, provided that the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR96
K.J. Rohee, J.1. This is an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 by an elector challenging the election of the returned candidate from 134-Nagpur East Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2. The facts which are undisputed can be stated thus:The Programme of General Election 2004 for Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was declared on 15.9.2004 as under:i) Last Date for submission of Nomination Papers 22.09.2004ii) Scrutiny of Nomination Papers 23.09.2004iii) Last Date for withdrawal of Nomination Papers 25.09.2004iv) Polling 13.10.2004.v) Declaration of Result 16.10.2004. 3. Shri Satish Jhaulal Chaturvedi (R-1) represented 134 Nagpur-East Legislative Assembly Constituency during the elections of 1980, 1990 and 1995 as the candidate of Indian National Congress. He had lost only one election of the year 1985 wherein he had contested as an independent candidate. On 22.9.2004 R-1 presented his nomination paper to the Returning officer of 134 -Nagpur East ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. This election petition is filed challenging the election of the respondent No.1 on the grounds under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the said Act?) for improper acceptance of his nomination paper by the Returning Officer. The substance of the averments made in the election petition is that the respondent No.1 has failed to disclose in his affidavit in Form No.26 submitted along-with his nomination paper delivered under Section 33(1) of the said Act, the information, as required under Section 33-A(1)(i) and (2) of the said Act, in respect of certain offences in which he is accused in a case pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The nomination of the respondent No.1 was required to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the said Act and the result of the election of the respondent No.1 has materially affected by such improper acceptance of his nomination, as contemplated under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!