| Election petition |
|
2001 SCCL.COM 4(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4105 of 1999)
Makhan Lal Bangal Appellant Vs. Manas Bhunia and ors. Respondents, decided on 1/3/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A — appeal under — election of appellant sought to be set aside on the ground of corrupt practices – election petition remanded to High Court for deciding afresh after compliance with Section 99 of the RPA – election petition with respect to (i) framing of issues, and (ii) recording of evidence.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 10(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2720 of 2000)
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho Appellant Vs. Jagdish Respondent, decided on 1/5/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 83(1) r/w Rule 94-A — challenge to election on the ground of commission of corrupt practices — objection to the maintainability of the election petition that affidavit not drawn up in the manner prescribed by Section 83(1) r/w Rule 94-A – election petition drawn up in Hindi so affidavit also drawn up in Hindi — requirement of Rule 2(b), Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules not met — whether election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1) for alleged non-compliance with Rule 2(b) of the High Court Rules relating to presentation of election petitions? — held no.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 52(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.2730 of 2000)
Tek Chand Appellant Vs. Dile Ram Respondent, decided on 1/24/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A — election of appellant from 61-Nachan (S.C.) Assembly Constituency declared void by High Court — appeal against — whether at the relevant time Nikka Ram was holding an office of profit being in the service of the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such his nomination paper was improperly accepted, and if so, whether the result of the election, insofar as it concerned the appellant, had been materially affected to declare it void? — held High Court committed a manifest error in concluding that the result of the election of the appellant had been materially affected on account of improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Nikka Ram — appeal allowed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 65(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4681 of 2000)
V.S. Achuthanandan Appellant Vs. P.J. Francis and Anr. Respondents, decided on 1/31/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – prayer for re-count of ballot papers — if the validity of an order passed by High Court permitting inspection of ballot papers and directing a recount is brought in issue before the Supreme Court, the facts revealed by re-count cannot be relied upon by the election-petitioner to support the prayer and sustain the order for re-count if the pleadings and material available on record anterior to actual re-count did not justify grant of the prayer for inspection and re-count — prayer for re-count declined.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 139(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1789 of 1998 with Civil Appeal No. 2080-2081 of 1998)
Patangrao Kadam Appellant Vs. Prithviraj Sayajirao Yadav Deshmukh and Ors. Respondents, decided on 2/26/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 79(b), 82(b) and 116-A — corrupt practices — allegations of — a person who is a candidate as defined in S. 79(b) of the Act, will remain a candidate even after he withdraws till the election is over, and if he commits a corrupt practice whether before or after his withdrawal he would be a necessary party under Section 82(b) of the Act.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 216(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6931 of 2000)
Kartar Singh Bhadana Appellant Vs. Hari Singh Nalwa and Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/27/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 9-A — disqualification — person entered into contract with Government in the course of his trade or business — whether disqualified for being chosen as a member of the legislature — appellant held mining leases from the Government — whether disqualified under Section 9-A? — held no — only when the appropriate Government has undertaken works, such as laying of a road, the erection of a building or the construction of a dam, and has entered into a contract for the execution of such works that the contractor is disqualified under Section 9-A.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 719(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1001 of 2000)
Pradyut Bordoloi Appellant Vs. Swapan Roy Respondent, decided on 12/12/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 10, 98(b) and 116A — Constitution of India — Article 191(1)(a) — election of appellant as MLA declared void by High Court — whether the respondent was holding an office of profit under the Government of India on the date of his nomination? — whether the respondent was disqualified being a manager of any company in the capital of the which the Government of India has not less than 25% shares? — held no fault can be found with the finding arrived at by the High Court that the respondent was not holding an office of profit under the Government of India and therefore no disqualification attached to him under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution — also the respondent did not incur a disqualification under Section 10, RPA — as the respondent’s nomination was improperly rejected, the appellant’s election was liable to be declared void — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 642(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4992 of 1999)
Kanhaiyalal Vishindas Gidwani Appellant Vs. Arun Dattatray Mahta and Ors. Respondents, decided on 11/16/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’be Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 33(1) — question whether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the nomination paper signed by the 10 proposers was blank? — held no — does the introduction of the word ’subscribed’ in Section 33(1) impose any obligation on the proposer of a nomination paper of a candidate not belonging to a recognised political party to apply his mind before appending his signature to such nomination form? — held the expression ’subscribe’ in the proviso cannot be read differently from the expression ’sign’ used in Section 33 — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 577(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 1999)
Vadivelu Appellant Vs. Sundaram and others Respondents, decided on 10/10/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: election petition – under Rule 22 of Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995 — for setting aside election of 1st respondent on the ground that certain illegalities and irregularities were committed — whether re-counting could be ordered — held no — re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings — appellant has not set forth material facts or particulars required for re-count of votes — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 545(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 865 of 2000)
Ravinder Singh Appellant Vs. Janmeja Singh & others Respondents, decided on 9/19/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 123(1)(A)(b) and 123(4) — corrupt practices under – election petition – seeking to declare election of returned candidate void — held absence of averments to lay a charge under Section 123(4) — also no affadavit filed to support allegations of corrupt practice of bribery as required under proviso to Section 83(1) — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 507(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos 6843-44 of 1999)
Election Commission of India Through Secretary Appellant Vs. Ashok Kumar and others Respondents, decided on 8/30/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: election petition – Constitution of India — Article 136 — High Court stayed the Notification issued by the Election Commission of India containing direction as to the manner of counting votes and made directions of its own on the subject — hence appeals by special leave by the Election Commission of India.
|
|
2000 SCCL.COM 502(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1999)
Shyamdeo Pd. Singh Appellant Vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav Respondent, decided on 8/28/2000.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal under — whether the averments made in the election petitionmade out a ground for declaring election to be void within the meaning of Section 100 of the 1951 Act obligating the learned Designated Election Judge to proceed with the trial of the election petition instead of summarily dismissing the same.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 237(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.4172-4173 of 1999)
G. Mallikar junappa and Anr. Appellants Vs. Shamanur Shivashankarappa and Ors. Respondents, decided on 4/4/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of the People Act — Sections 83(2) and 86 — CPC — Order 7 Rule 11 r/w S.151 — an election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86(1) of the Act if the election petition does not comply with either the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117 of the R.P. Act — an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) or (2) of the Act or of its proviso — the defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 500(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3538 of 2000)
Shibu Soren Appellant Vs. Dayanand Sahay and others Respondents, decided on 7/19/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 102(1)(a) — Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 — Sections 80 and 81 – election petition – challenged on the ground that the appellant was holding “an office of profit” under the State Government and thus disqualified to contest election to Rajya Sabha — held appellant rightly held to have been holding “an office of profit under the State Government” at the relevant time — High Court justified in setting aside election — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 512(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos.4396-4398 of 2000)
Mulayam Singh Yadav Appellants Vs. Dharampal Yadav and Others. Respondents, decided on 7/24/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 81, 83 and 86(1) — whether Schedule 14 and the video cassette therein referred to is an integral part of the election petition and whether the failure to file the original thereof in court alongwith theelection petition attracts Section 81 and, therefore, Section 86(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951? — held the video cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition and it should have been filed in Court with copies thereof for service upon the respondents to the election petition – election petition not complete — dismissed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 558(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7113 of 2000)
P.H. Pujar Appellant Vs. Dr. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa & Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/7/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwaland Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 81 — petition under — declaration sought that election of appellant was void on the grounds of improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes as also non-compliance of provisions of the Act, Rules and the orders made thereunder as set out in S.100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act — appropriate directions issued.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 634(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4605 of 2000)
Sri T. Phunzathang Appellant Vs. Sri Hangkhanlian and others Respondents, decided on 8/28/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 123, 83 and 86 — Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — would the omission of verification or affirmation by Oath Commissioner or Prescribed Authority as required in Form 25 and Rule 94A in the copy of affidavit supplied to respondent ipso facto entail dismissal of the election petition under Section 86(1) of the Act? — held such omissions are only curable irregularities.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 691(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2000 (With C.A. No. 4405 of 2000))
Hari Shankar Jain Appellant Vs. Sonia Gandhi Respondent, decided on 9/12/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A and 82(1)(a) — appeal under – election petition – challenge to election of respondent — Indian Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 5(1)(c) — CPC — Order VII Rule 11 — a plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India and hence not qualified, or is disqualified for being a candidate in the election can be raised in an election petition before the High Court in spite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship by registration under Section 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act — held valid and vague averments made in the election petition do not satisfy the requirement of pleading material facts within the meaning of Section 82 (1)(a) of RPA 1951 read with the requirements or Order V11 Rule 11 CPC and hence cannot be directed to be heard and tried on merits — appeals dismissed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 706(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (C) No. 242 of 2001)
B.R. Kapur Petitioner Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another Respondents, decided on 9/21/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.P. Bharucha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Ruma Pal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: [Ms. J. Jayalalitha's Case] Constitution of India — Article 164(1) r/w (4) — Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 8 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) — Indian Penal Code — Sections 120B and 409 — offences under — conviction — whether a person who has been convicted of a criminal offence and whose conviction has not been suspended pending appeal can be sworn in and can continue to function as the Chief Minister of a State? — held on the date on which the second respondent was sworn in as Chief Minister she was disqualified, by reason of her convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences of imprisonment of not less than two years, for becoming a member of the legislature under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act — held a person who is convicted for a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than two years cannot be appointed the Chief Minister of a State under Article 164(1) read with (4) and cannot continue to function as such.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 729(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 596 of 2000)
Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Shahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha And Anr. Appellants Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/25/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — Constitution of India — Article 226 — whether the preparation of the electoral roll for electing members to the managing committee of a specified society under the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder is an intermediate state in the process of election — whether the High Court should interfere with the preparation of an electoral roll in a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution or decline to interfere in the matter leaving the parties to get the matter adjudicated by the tribunal by filing anelection petition after declaration of result of election — held the preparation of the electoral roll for election of the specified society under Chapter XIA and the Rules Framed thereunder, is an intermediate stage in the process of election for constituting managing committee of a specified society — the view taken by the High Court that the appellant having an alternative remedy, the writ petition deserved dismissed is upheld — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 769(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6658 of 2000)
Ananga Uday Singh Deo Appellant Vs. Ranga Nath Mishra and others Respondents, decided on 10/12/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 – election petition – election of Respondents challenged — allegation of corrupt practices — serious matter — if proved, not only does the candidate suffer ignominy, he also suffers disqualification from standing for election for a period that may extend to six years — held no merit in appeal — dismissed.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 768(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 734 of 2001)
B.S. Yadiyurappa Appellant Vs. Mahaligappa and Ors. Respondents, decided on 10/10/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice. S.P. Bharucha, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1957 — sections 82 and 86(1) — parties other than those mentioned in Section 82 impleaded — Held those who are mentioned in Section 82 of the said Act must be made parties to an election petition and, if they are not, the election petitionis one which does not comply with the provisions of Section 82 and must, therefore, be dismissed by reason of the terms of Section 86(1) — a petition can be amended by striking out from the array of parties those additionally impleaded.
|
|
2001 SCCL.COM 821(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.1306 of 2001)
Santosh Yadav Appellant Vs. Narender Singh Respondent, decided on 10/30/2001.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 30 — challenge to election of respondent — whether the High Court was right in forming the opinion that on the established facts and circumstances of the case the appellant had failed in proving that the election of the respondent was materially affected by improper acceptance of the nomination paper of Shri Naresh Yadav — it is well settled that the success of a winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with. This is all the more so when the election of a successful candidate is sought to be set aside for no fault of his but of someone else — the election petitioner/appellant has failed in discharging the heavy burden, which lay on her, of proving that the result of election, in so far as it concerns the returned candidate i.e., the respondent, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomination of Shri Naresh Yadav, the judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 008(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4042-4043 of 2001)
Kamalnath Appellant Vs. Sudesh Verma Respondent, decided on 1/8/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of Peoples Act — Sections 123(6) and 83(1) — allegation of corrupt practices of incurring expenditure in contravention of Section 77 — held there has been an infirmity in the election petition, as the material facts in the context of allegation of corrupt practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) read with Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act are lacking and such an election petition is liable to be dismissed.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 042(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 652 of 2002 (With C.A. No. 653 of 2002))
Shaik Saidulu @ Saida Appellant Vs. Chukka Yesu Ratnam and others Respondents, decided on 1/23/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi.
Subject Index: Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 — Section 71 — Limitation Act — Section 5 — whether section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the election petitions filed under the Act or not? — held yes.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 101(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1310 of 2001)
Michael B. Fernandes Appellant Vs. C.K. Jaffer Sharief and others Respondents, decided on 2/14/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: election petition – election challenged — Representation of the People Act — Sections 82 and 86(4) — whether by indicating in the Act as to who shall be arrayed as party, the Court would be justified in allowing some others as parties to an election petition – Jyoti Basu’s case reiterated — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 132(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3993 of 2001)
Mahendra Pal Appellant Vs. Shri Ram Dass Malanger & Ors. Respondents, decided on 3/1/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A – election petition – re-counting – election petitioner cannot be permitted to make out a case for re-count of ballot papers on a ground for which there is no foundation laid by him, not even a whisper, in the pleadings and which does not appear to have a ring of truth, even prima facie.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 195(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5657 of 2001)
Rajankumar Shankarrao Taware and another Appellants Vs. Ajit Anantrao Pawar Respondent, decided on 3/20/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Phukan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116A — Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — sections 100(1)(d)(iii), 101 and 102 — Rule 93 – election petition – allegation of mal practices at the time of counting of votes — held the appellants have failed to establish a prima facie case for inspection of ballot papers — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 345(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2-3 of 2002 (with C.A. No. 1455 of 2002))
Prakash Khandre Appellant with Baswaraj D. Honna Appellant Vs. Dr. Vijaya Kumar Khandre and others Respondents, decided on5/9/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bisheshwar Prasad Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 – election petition – when contest for election to the post of MLA is by more than two candidates for one seat and a candidate, who was disqualified to contest the election, is elected - whether the Court can declare a candidate who has secured next higher votes as elected? — whether contract between the elected candidate and the Government was subsisting on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers?
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 478(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1734 of 2001)
M.Y. Ghorpade Appellant Vs. Shivaji Rao M. Poal and Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/4/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 117 — election of the appellant challenged — whether there has been non-compliance of Section 117 of the Act? — held sum of Rs. 2,000/- must be deposited while filing an election petition and that is undoubtedly mandatory, but through whom the amount will be deposited etc. cannot be held to be mandatory — there has been compliance of Section 117 of the Act and consequently the election petition has been rightly held to be maintainable and could not have been dismissed under Section 86 on the ground of non-compliance of Section 117 of the Act.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 593(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6593 of 2000 (With SLP (C) ……./2001 (CC 8664 of 2001))
Ram Prasad Sarma Appellant Vs. Mani Kumar Subba and others Respondents, decided on 10/29/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 — Section 81(3) — non-compliance of — held mere omission of indicating the name of the Oath Commissioner or an endorsement in the true copy that the affidavit was attested by on Oath Commissioner bearing his stamp and seal etc. would not be material.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 648(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 7623-7624 of 2002)
Sohan Lal Appellant Vs. Babu Gandhi and others Respondents, decided on 11/22/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 — Section 122 – election petition – direction for recounting — contention that as held in Ram Rati’s case unless a party first applies to the Returning Officer for recounting of votes it is not open to the Tribunal or the Court to direct recounting — held it is not correct to hold that, in an election petition, after the declaration of the result, the Court or Tribunal cannot direct recounting of votes unless the party has first applied in writing for recounting of votes. There is no prohibition in the Act or under the rules prohibiting the Court or Tribunal to direct a recounting of the votes — ratio laid down in Ram Rati’s case is not correct.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 652(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 551 of 2002)
Mahender Pratap Appellant Vs. Krishan Pal and Ors. Respondents, decided on 11/22/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari.
Subject Index: Representation of people Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal under – election petition – petition seeking relief of recount of votes on the ground that serious irregularities were committed in counting of votes on electronic voting machines — held in election petition, if the parties are found to have made incorrect statements in their pleadings, affidavits or depositions and there is thereby an intention on their part to mislead the court, appropriate deterrent action like dismissal of their cases with costs, prosecution for perjury or initiation of contempt proceedings should be taken by the court lest the judicial process would continue to be polluted and misused by undeserving parties who have no real grievance or cause for seeking aid of judicial forums. Such false cases not only contribute to the work-load of the court had kill its precious time but create hurdles in the ways of genuine litigants who sincerely need assistance of the court for obtaining justice — appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the appellant.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 700(Case/Appeal No: Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 (With S.L.P.(C) No. 22385 of 2002))
Charan Lal Sahu Petitioner Vs. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and others Respondents, decided on 12/11/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice G.B. Patnaik, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar.
Subject Index: Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 — Rules 1974 — Election of President of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam challenged by petitioner on the ground of illegal rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner and the illegal acceptance of the nomination paper of the respondent No.1 — does the petitioner have a locus standi to maintain his election petition, or in other words, is he duly nominated candidate in accordance with provisions of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act? — has the petition put a valid challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Act or any other provisions of the Act and the Rules? — is the petition maintainable? — held the petitioner cannot be regarded as a person who had been nominated or can claim to have been duly nominated as candidate at the election in question. His nomination papers were thus rightly rejected by the returning officer and the petition on his behalf is, therefore, not maintainable — no merit in either the election petition or the SLP — dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
|
|
2002 SCCL.COM 763(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4023 of 2001)
Shaligram Shrivastava Appellant Vs. Naresh Singh Patel Respondent, decided on 12/19/2002.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 8 — disqualification on conviction for certain offences — the declaration in the nomination paper that the candidate is qualified and not disqualified may only be a mere basic statement necessary to fill up the nomination paper but it contains no information or facts relevant for the purposes of scrutinising the nomination paper in the light of Section 8 of the Act which falls in Part II of the Act — no scrutiny of the nomination paper could be made under Section 36(2) of the Act in the light of Section 8 of the Act. It certainly rendered the nomination paper suffering from defect of substantial character and the Returning Officer was within his rights in rejecting the same.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 241(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1860 of 2003 (With C.A. Nos. 1861 and 1862 of 2003))
Jamal Uddin Ahmad Appellant Vs. Abu Saleh Najmuddin and another Respondents, decided on 2/28/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: election petition – Representative of the People Act, 1951 — Section 80/81 — whether the High Court is at all competent to frame rules making provision for receiving the election petitions presented to the High Court under Section 81 of the RPA; and if the High Court is not competent to frame the rules, then whether in the absence of any provision in the Act or rules framed by the Central Government specifying the person who is competent to receive election petitions presented to the High Court, no petition can be presented; or, so long as there is no specific provision can it be inferred by reading Article 329 with Articles 214 and 216 of the Constitution that the election petition can be presented only to the High Court in the sense of the Chief Justice and other judges constituting the High Court for the time being sitting together to receive the election petition? — held presentation of an election petition to the Stamp Reporter of the High Court of Gauhati is a valid presentation — appeals dismissed.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 280(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4621 of 2002)
Hari Shankar Prasad Appellant Vs. Shahid Ali Khan and others Respondents, decided on 3/13/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: election petition – Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 16(A) — wrong stamp was made available to the voters by the polling officer. That being the position, such of the ballot papers marked by the stamp supplied have been wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer and they are to be counted in favour of the petitioner-appellant also as per the directions of the Election Commission — held the margin of vote between two contenders is only 35 votes, counting 90 votes in favour of the appellant would provide a lead of 55 votes to the petitioner-appellant who would be entitled for being declared elected – election petition allowed.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 347(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3531-3532 of 2002)
T.A. Ahammed Kabeer Appellant Vs. A.A. Azeez and others Respondents, decided on 4/10/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 97, 100(1)(d)(iii) & (iv) – election petition – the pleadings and proof in the matter of recount have relevance for the purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction to permit or not to permit recount. Once the jurisdiction to other recount is found to have been rightly exercised, thereafter it is the truth as revealed by the result of recounting that has to be given effect to — a case of error in counting would fall within the purview of sub-clause (iv), and not sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of the Act.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 477(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4033 of 2002)
Jibontara Ghatowar Appellant Vs. Sarbananda Sonowal and others Respondents, decided on 5/9/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agrawal.
Subject Index: election petition – challenge to election of respondent no.1 — the pleadings and proof in the matter of recount have relevance for the purpose of determining the question of jurisdiction to permit or not to permit recount. Once the jurisdiction to order recount is found to have been rightly exercised, thereafter it is the truth as revealed by the result of recounting that has to be given effect to — in the present case a clear case for directing a recount was made out — the High Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for permitting a recount. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The case is remanded back to the High Court.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 635(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5252 of 2002)
Harsh Kumar Appellant Vs. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat and Ors. Respondents, decided on 8/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 80, 80A, 82, 100 and 101 — challenge to the election — improper acceptance of nomination paper and corrupt practice of bribery — Daler Singh cannot be held to be less than 25 years of age merely on the basis of mark sheet (Exhibit A-36). It cannot, therefore, be held that the nomination paper of Daler Singh was improperly accepted — the appellant has failed to prove that respondent No.1 was guilty of committing corrupt practice of bribery as alleged in para 9 of the election petition – appeal dismissed.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 787(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3602 of 2002)
P.T. Rajan Appellant Vs. T.P.M. Sahir and others Respondents, decided on 9/26/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116 A — 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.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 818(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4402 of 2002)
Bidesh Singh Appellant Vs. Madhu Singh & Ors. Respondents, decided on 9/23/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha .
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 86 – election petition – dismissal of — appeal — the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment held that once the error as specified in clause (h) of Rule 56(2) has been committed the Returning Officer had no other option but to reject the said ballot papers — the very approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the election petition at the threshold was erroneous — the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in terms of Section 86 is limited. The election petition, it is trite, cannot be dismissed at the threshold even for non-compliance of Section 83 of the Act — keeping in the view the fact that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 86 of the Act, we have no other option but to set aside the impugned order leaving the questions raised by respondent No. 1 in his application open for determination thereof at an appropriate stage.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 834(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8585 of 2002)
Sushil Kumar Appellant Vs. Rakesh Kumar Respondent, decided on 10/16/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 116-A — and Article 173(b) — appeal under – election petition – disqualification — the materials on records taken in their entirety together with the circumstantial evidence goes to show that the respondent was not above the age of 25 years on the date of filing of the nomination. The findings of the High Court to the contrary cannot be sustained — the impugned judgment is set aside. The appeal is allowed and the election of the respondent from 181 Parbatta Assembly Constituency is declared as void.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 846(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1833-1834 of 2003)
Regu Mahesh @ Regu Maheswar Rao Appellant Vs. Rajendra Pratap Bhanj Dev and another Respondents, decided on 10/30/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeals under — primary stand taken in the election petition appears to be that the claim of respondent no.1 that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe is not correct — held no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment dismissing the election petition.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 847(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5841 of 2002)
Harikrishna Lal Appellant Vs. Babu Lal Marandi Respondent, decided on 10/30/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan.
Subject Index: election petition – on the face of the nomination paper the respondent was not disqualified in any manner. The returning officer satisfied himself as to the identity of the respondent and, the electoral roll of the constituency, which was available with him to be seen, pointed out only an inconsequential technical variation in description — the success of a winning candidate is not to be lightly interfered with. The burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside on any of the grounds available in the law. In an election petition if nobody adduces evidence it is the election-petitioner who fails. The High Court rightly framed the issue placing the burden of proof on the election-petitioner. As no evidence was adduced by the election-petitioner, the High Court rightly dismissed the election petition – the appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 893(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2003 (With C.A. No. 8648 of 2003))
Mercykutty Amma Appellant Vs. Kadavoor Sivadasan and Another Respondents, decided on 11/6/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: A) Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A — appeal under — the appellant in his election petition inter-alia contended that the respondent had taken recourse to ‘corrupt practices’ within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 insofar as a pamphlet was brought out with an intent to promote feelings of enmity and hatred amongst the voters belonging to Ezhava caste and communal feelings, which was raised thereby, became a major factor resulting in the split of votes of the people of the said community — the evidence of the said witness is not conclusive on the question that offending material was printed and published by Karthika Press or the expenditure therefor was borne by the respondent No.1 — the appellant has not been able to prove: a) That the said Shri K.C. Marydasan was his agent; b) that the offending material was published with the knowledge and consent of the first respondent. B) Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 99 — a person indulged in corrupt practices whether party to the petition in terms of Section 82 or subsequently receives a notice in terms of Section 99 would stand on the same footing having regard to the provisions contained in Section 8A of the Act. Such a person may not be a necessary party within the meaning of Section 82 of the Act but it is beyond any cavil that no finding could be recorded by naming such a person unless the mandatory provisions of Section 99 are complied with — even if Marydasan was agent of the first respondent within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act, the High Court was required to comply with the aforementioned statutory mandate. It has not been disputed that the provisions of Section 99 are mandatory. Maryadasan, thus, could not have been named as having indulged himself in corrupt practices without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 99 of the Act — the High Court, thus, committed a manifest illegality in coming to the conclusion that offending article Ex. P2(b) was published at the instance of Marydasan.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 935(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2003)
M. Chinnasamy Appellant Vs. K.C. Palanisamy and others Respondents, decided on 11/21/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — to what extent an election tribunal should exercise its jurisdiction to direct inspection of the ballot papers and recounting of votes polled while determining an election petition in terms of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 966(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5665 of 2002 (with C.A. No. 5666 of 2002))
Liverpool & London S.P. & I Asson. Ltd. Appellant Vs. M.V. Sea Success I and Anr. Respondents, decided on 11/20/2003.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: A) Supreme Court is not bound by the American decisions — American decisions have merely a persuasive value — this Court would not hesitate in borrowing the principles if the same is in consonance with the scheme of Indian law keeping in view the changing global scenario. Global changes and outlook in trade and commerce could be a relevant factor. With the change of time; from narrow and pedantic approach, the Court may resort to broad and liberal interpretation. B) Compulsory third party risk insurance cover — Chapter IV of the Inland Vessels Act provides for a compulsory insurance in terms whereof Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 has been incorporated by reference — this Court while considering the question of third party insurance in Motor Vehicles has noticed the development of law from the Road Traffic Act, 1930 and Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the amendments carried out therein from time to time. C) Circulars — issued by the Port Trusts may not determinative — but would a relevant factor. D) Words and Phrases — ‘necessaries’ — whether arrears of insurance premium would come within the term ‘necessaries’ — whether a prudent shipowner would provide for an insurance. A compulsory insurance regime has come into being and keeping in view the changed situation the definition of the expression ‘necessaries’ should also undergo a change — having regard to the changing scenario and keeping in tune with the changes in both domestic and international law as also the statutes adopted by several countries, a stand, however, bold, may have to be taken that unpaid insurance premium of P&I Club would come within the purview of the expression “Necessaries supplied to any ship”. E) Insurance premium — unpaid insurance premium being a maritime claim would be enforceable in India. F) Letters Patent Appeal — Clause 15 — the right of appeal which is provided under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot be said to be restricted — Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is not a special statute. Only in a case where there exists an express prohibition in the matter of maintainability of an intra court appeal, the same may not be held to be maintainable. But in the event there does not exist any such prohibition and if the order will otherwise be a ‘judgment’ within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, an appeal shall be maintainable — Letters Patent Appeal — maintainability of. G) Preliminary judgment — the order refusing to reject the plaint falls in the category of a preliminary judgment.
|
|
2003 SCCL.COM 29(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4294 of 1998 (with C.A. No. 4295 of 1998))
People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another Appellants Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 1/6/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 19(1)(a) — right of information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The State under Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions inter alia in the interest of the State. How far and to what extent the same should be balanced is the question involved — held keeping in view the purport and object for which the disclosure of the Report of the Board has been withheld — it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India — offer to put the Report in a sealed cover before the Court — not necessary — the order issued by the Central Government under Section 18 of the Act and its claim of privilege do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference with the High Court judgment.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 34(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5559 of 2001 (With C.A. Nos. 5562, 5561, 5563-64, 5565-66, 5567-68/2001, 209, 207/2004, 3211/2002, 208 of 2004))
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Appellant Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and another Respondents, decided on 1/13/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Brijesh Kumar.
Subject Index: A) Leases — increase in rent — Bombay Port Trust Estate, admeasuring around 720 hectares out of which area under the jurisdiction of BPT is around 336 hectares — occupied by the leasees — leases created long back — rate of return hopelessly inadequate — Kirloskar Consultants appointed — notices issued — writ petitions filed — the Division Bench formed an opinion and expressed it to the parties that the matter should be put to an end and suggested that they would fix a cut-off date and the number of years upto the expiry of which they would direct the lessees to pay the increase in rent at a certain percentage to be decided by them, so that at fixed intervals of years BPT would get permanently an automatic increase in rent at the percentage fixed by them — the Board arrived at a formula which has been termed as ‘compromise proposals’, approved in the meeting of the Board held on August 13, 1991, and submitted to the Court — the matter between the parties has to be decided by treating the Compromise Proposals dated 13th August 1991 as the base. Any going behind would unsettle the settled issues - expressly or by necessary implication — appeal disposed of in terms of the following directions : (i) by this judgment and in these proceedings the controversy as to the rates of rent applicable to the lessees shall be deemed to have been resolved for the period 1.4.1994 to 31.3.2000; (ii) the ‘Compromise Proposals’ as approved by the Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai in their meeting held on 13.8.1991 which are very fair, just and reasonable, subject to the modification that the revision in rent from 1.4.1994, shall be on the basis of rates of return at 10% for non-residential uses and 8% for residential uses, based on Kirloskar Consultants’ report, instead of 15% and 12% respectively as was suggested in the ‘Compromise Proposals’. The ‘Compromise Proposals’ so modified shall bind the parties, and all the lessees even if not parties to these proceedings in view of the proceedings taken by the High Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the C.P.C.; (iii) the rates of rent for the period upto 31.3.1994 shall remain as suggested in the ‘Compromise Proposals’; (xii) The issue as to the applicability of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, to the Port of Mumbai and the property held by it is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings — (iv) to (xii) refer to the judgment. B) Constitution of India — Article 136 — jurisdiction — it is well-settled that Article 136 of the Constitution does not confer a right to appeal on any party; it confers a discretionary power on the Supreme Court to interfere in suitable cases. The very conferment of the discretionary powers defies any attempt at exhaustive definition of such power. When no law confers a statutory right to appeal on a party, Article 136 cannot be called in aid to spell out such a right — the practise and experience apart, the framers of the Constitution did design the jurisdiction of this Court to remain an extraordinary jurisdiction whether at the stage of granting leave or at the stage of deciding the appeal itself after the grant of leave. This Court has never done and would never to injustice now allow injustice being perpetuated just for the sake of upholding technicalities — the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is not dependent on the provisions of Order 41 of the CPC. The Court may frame rules governing its own procedure and practice. No such rule has been framed by the Court which entitles or permits a respondent to file a cross-objection — the cross-objections preferred by the respondent-Trust are dismissed as not maintainable and as also being devoid of any merit.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 78(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4262 of 2003)
Ram Phal Kundu Appellant Vs. Kamal Sharma Respondent, decided on 1/23/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116A — appeal by the returned candidate – election petition filed by respondent allowed — direction for fresh election – unless the election petitioner fully established his case, it will not be legally correct to set aside the election of the appellant. As discussed earlier, Kamal Sharma has failed to do so.– the appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order dated 8.5.2003 of the High Court is set aside. The election petition filed by Kamal Sharma is dismissed. The appellant will be entitled to his costs both here and in the High Court.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 333(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3749 of 2003)
Jaipal Singh Appellant Vs. Smt. Sumitra Mahajan and another Respondents, decided on 4/1/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 83 (1)(a) and 116-A — Whether the election petition filed by the appellant was lacking in material facts as required under section 83(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 422(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2489 of 2004 )
Manda Jaganath Appellant Vs. K.S. Rathnam and Ors. Respondents, decided on 4/16/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh.
Subject Index: Constitution of India — Article 329(b) — Representation of the People Act, 1951 — symbol — allotment of — election process — stalling of — whether the Returning Officer is justified in rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent herein or not, is not a matter for the High Court to decide in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This issue should be agitated by an aggrieved party in an election petition only — there is no question of stalling the election. His grievance as to such non-allotment of the symbol will have to be agitated in an election petition – the High Court on facts of this case, could not have interfered with the decision of the Returning Officer to reject Form B filed by the first respondent.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 610(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4437 of 2004)
Jeet Mohinder Singh Appellant Vs. Harminder Singh and another Respondents, decided on 7/26/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: election petition – Civil Procedure Code — order XVI Rule 3 — order XVIII Rule 17 — application under order XVI Rule 3 — the application was not filed with care and caution and did not indicate the relevant provisions of law correctly — it would be proper to permit the appellant, if he so chooses, to file a fresh application in terms of Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the rejection of the application which was styled as one under Order XVI Rule 3 of the Code.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 983(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8102 of 2003)
Sardar Harcharan Singh Brar Appellant Vs. Sukh Darshan Singh and others Respondents, decided on 10/27/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 195 — Sections 80, 80A and 81 – election petition – setting aside — the main grounds on which the election of respondent No.1 was sought to be set aside were that the nomination of one on the respondents was improperly accepted which had resulted in the result of the election being materially affected and that the respondent No.1 was guilty of having committed the corrupt practice of obtaining the assistance of a police officer within the meaning of Section 123(7) of the Act. Several instances of commission of such corrupt practice were set out in the election petition – the short point which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the election petitioncould have been held liable to be dismissed at the threshold and without being tried and heard on merits. Under Section 86(1) of the Act, anelection petition is liable to be dismissed without being set down for trial, if it does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. Sections 81, 82 and 117 respectively provide for presentation of petition, parties to the petition and security for cost — an election petition is not liable to be dismissed in limine under Section 86 of the Act, for alleged non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1) or (2) of the Act or of its proviso. The defect in the verification and the affidavit is a curable defect — Having formed an opinion that there was any defect in the affidavit, the election petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity of removing the defect by filing a proper affidavit. Else the effect of such failure should have been left to be determined and adjudicated upon at the trial — the election petition shall stand restored on the file of the High Court.
|
|
2004 SCCL.COM 1110(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6622 of 2003 (with C.A. No. 6750 of 2003))
Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar Appellant Vs. Shri Dayanand Rayu Mandrakar and others Respondents, decided on 12/15/2004.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — statutory appeals filed under — section 81 (3) 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) — non-compliance of the mandatory provisions — whether the returned candidates proved that the election petitions were liable to be rejected under section 81(1) read with section 86 of the Act by reason of it being barred by limitation? — whether the returned candidates proved that theelection petitions were liable to be rejected in limine under section 86 of the Act by reason of its non-compliance of sections 81(3), 83(1)(a)(c) and 83(2) of the Act? — whether the respondent No.1 proved that the election petition was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with section 86 of the Act by reason of non-disclosure of any cause of action? — under section 116A of the Act the Supreme Court is conferred with power not only to decide an appeal filed under this section on a question of law but it would also be open to the Supreme Court to decide the appeal on facts as well — in any event, there has been substantial compliance of the requirements of law — the Appeals should be allowed and the matter be remitted to the High Court for determining the dispute on merits.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 24(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8213 of 2001 (with C.A. No. 6691 of 2002))
P. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal Appellant Vs. P. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others Respondents,decided on 1/11/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil, Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur.
Subject Index: Representation of the people Act, 1951 — Section 8(3) — disqualification under — Whether a appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and election; — What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression - ‘A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years” as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Is it necessary that the term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single offence to attract the disqualification? — What is the purport of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of RPA? Whether the protection against disqualification conferred by sub-section (4) on a member of a House would continue to apply through the candidate had ceased to be a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of nomination or election? — an appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate or sentence of imprisonment passed on him would not have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years was actually and as a fact disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the date of nomination or election (as the case may be) — What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression ’sentence to imprisonment for not less than 2 years’ as occurring in Sec. 8(3) of the RPA? — the judgment of the High Court dated 5.10.2001 is set aside. The election petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The election of the respondent P. Jayarajan from No.14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly, which was declared on 13.5.2001, is set aside. The respondent No.1 shall bear the costs of the appellant throughout — The election petition filed by the appellant shall stand allowed. The election of the respondent Nafe Singh from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency is declared void as he was disqualified from being a candidate under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 25(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9228 of 2003)
Janak Singh Appellant Vs. Ram Das Rai and others Respondents, decided on 1/11/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act — Sections 81, 82, 83 and 117 — whether the election petition, as filed, as maintainable in its present form? — whether the election is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of Sections 81, 82, 117 and Section 83 of the Representation of People Act? — whether the election is liable to be rejected for non-compliance of Sections 81, 82, 117 and Section 83 of the Representation of People Act? — whether the irregularities and illegalities, as alleged in the election petition with its Annexures make a case of recounting of ballots? — to what relief, if any, the election petition can be granted — appeal — the para-military staff outside the polling booth maintains law and order situation outside but what transpires inside the polling booth is beyond their reach — the Election Commission may consider some measures to appoint some of the personnel from para-military force to be deputed inside the polling booth so as to keep eye on local staff who are entrusted to conduct the election — the money which is allotted for the conduct of election is utilized for other purpose that is other than for the conducting of the election like purchasing odd items. The Election Commission should insist the State to utilize the amount made available to them for conduct of election and for no other purpose. Some of the funds have also been utilized for entertainment of the election observes. This should be taken care by the Election Commission and strict instructions should be given to observes not to accept undue hospitality of State because that would unnecessarily compromise their objectivity and transparency — the view taken by the Learned single Judge is correct and there is no ground to interfere in this appeal.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 61(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal Nos. 4413-4414 of 2003)
Sobha Hymavathi Devi Appellant Vs. Setti Gangadhara Swamy and others Respondents, decided on 1/28/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal under — two election petitions were allowed by the High Court upholding the challenge to the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was not qualified to contest from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates — the High Court was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant could not claim the right to contest a seat reserved for a Scheduled Tribe in terms of Article 332 of the Constitution of India merely by virtue of her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 76(Case/Appeal No: Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 2005 With Special Leave Petition (crl.) 3749 of 2001)
Pratap Singh Appellant Vs. State of Jharkhand and another Respondents, decided on 2/2/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Variava, Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Singh, Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Sema and Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Juvenile Act, 1986 and 2000 — the provisions of 2000 Act would be applicable to those cases initiated and pending trial/inquiry for the offences committed under the 1986 Act provided that the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001 — the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of an offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in the Court — the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding in any court/authority initiated under the 1986 Act and is pending when the 2000 Act came into force and the person had not completed 18 years of age as on 1.4.2001.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 192(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2004)
Raj Kumar Yadav Appellant Vs. Samir Kumar Mahaseth and others Respondents, decided on 3/11/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal under – election petition presented under section 81 directed to be dismissed as barred by time — the election petition was handed over to the designated Election Judge on the last day of limitation at 4.25 p.m. when the learned Judge was still available within the court premises though he was not sitting in the open court, as the prescribed time of 4.15 p.m. ordinarily meant for transacting judicial work was over — the election petition is held to have been filed within prescribed period of limitation.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 257(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7000 of 2004)
Kailash Appellant Vs. Nanhku and others Respondents, decided on 4/6/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 80 — challenge to the election of the appellant — whether Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC is applicable to the trial of an election petition under Chapter II of the Act? — whether the rules framed by the High Court governing the trial of election petitions would override the provisions of CPC and permit a written statement being filed beyond the period prescribed by Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC? — whether the time limit of 90 days as prescribed by the Proviso appended to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is mandatory or directory in nature?
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 330(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 8315 of 2003)
Harmohinder Singh Pradhan Appellant Vs. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi and others Respondents, decided on 4/28/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal order puts in issue an order passed by the designated Election Judge of the High Court, whereby an election petition filed by the appellant has been directed to be dismissed at the threshold as disclosing no cause of action — sole ground on which the election was sought to be challenged is corrupt practice under sub-section (3) of section 123 of the Act — necessary averment of facts constituting an appeal on the ground of ‘his religion’ to vote or to refrain from voting would be material facts within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the Act — no fault can be found with the view taken by the learned designated Election Judge of the High Court.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 381(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.6908 of 2003)
Mahendra Singh Appellant Vs. Gulab Respondent, decided on 5/10/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116A — appeal under — the appellant filed the election petition before the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, under Section 80 of the Act seeking a declaration that the election of the respondent was vitiated since the respondent was guilty of corrupt practices as defined in Section 123 (4) of the Act — the High Court found that the appellant has not established the corrupt practices imputed to the respondent and has not been able to successfully challenge the election of the respondent. Thus, theelection petition was dismissed. It is this dismissal that is challenged in this appeal – no ground is made out for interference with the dismissal of the election petition filed by the appellant on the ground that he had failed to establish any corrupt practice by the respondent in terms of Section 123 (4) of the Act.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 406(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6521 of 2004)
Anil Baluni Appellant Vs. Surendra Singh Negi Respondent, decided on 7/14/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur, Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1961 — Sections 33, 80, 81, 100(1)(c) and 116-A — Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 — paragraph 13 — nomination — improper rejection-nomination papers admitted as valid subsequently rejected as filed beyond stipulated time — interpolations done in nomination papers — case of improper rejection — election of returning candidate declared void — election petition allowed.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 646(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 9444 of 2003)
Suresh Seth Appellant Vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation and others Respondents, decided on 10/6/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 – election petition challenging election of elected Mayor as he being a sitting member of the Legislative Assembly, was disqualified from holding office of Mayor of a corporation — term of office of elected mayor already ended — appeal infructuous — plea of issuance of direction for amendment in M.P. Municipal Corporation Act so that a person is debarred from holding two elected offices not tenable as Court cannot direct legislature to enact a particular law — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 730(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1102 of 2004)
Satrucharla Vijaya Rama Raju Petitioner Vs. Nimmaka Jaya Raju and others Respondents, decided on 10/27/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice R.C. Lahoti, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 5, 80 and 100(1)(d)(i) – election petition challenging Scheduled Tribe status of appellant and his right to contest election as such from a constituency reserved for the scheduled tribes — previous judgment rendered on same issue between appellant and a third party not judgment in rem hence would not operate as res judicata for instant case — conclusive evidence showing that appellant belongs to higher caste — order setting aside election of appellant upheld — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2005 SCCL.COM 838(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 845 of 2005)
Harkirat Singh Appellant Vs. Amrinder Singh Respondent, decided on 12/16/2005.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan.
Subject Index: (A) Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 77, 83, 100 and 123 — conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — Rules 90 and 94A – election petition dismissed on ground that it did not disclose a cause of action — material facts of corrupt practices set out in petition — Government officials helped in campaigning — correct and proper accounts of election expenses not maintained — High Court at stage of consideration cannot go into merits of election petition – appeal allowed. (B) Material facts and particulars — distinction.
|
|
2006 SCCL.COM 981(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5186 of 2006 (with Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2006))
State of Himachal Pradesh and others Appellants Vs. Surinder Singh Banolta Respondent, decided on 11/24/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 122 — disqualification — encroacher — once, thus, a person is declared to be an encroacher prior to the date on which he has been declared as elector and if the said order has attained finality, the question as to whether he stood disqualified in terms of the provisions of Section 122 of the Act, must be raised by way of an election petition alone — the entire statute must be read as a whole. The relevant provisions of the Constitution as also those in the statute must, thus, be read harmoniously.
|
|
2006 SCCL.COM 1024(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 809 of 2005)
Virender Nath Gautam Appellant Vs. Satpal Singh and others Respondents, decided on 12/8/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 83 – election petition dismissed on preliminary ground — material facts which are required to be pleaded in the election petition as required by Section 83 (1) of the Act read with Order VII, Rule 11(a) of the Code have been pleaded by the election- petitioner, cause of action has been disclosed in the election petition and, hence, the petition could not have been dismissed by the High Court. The impugned order of the High Court suffers from infirmity and cannot be sustained.
|
|
2006 SCCL.COM 1052(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4093 of 2004 (with Civil Appeal Nos. 5999-6000 of 2004))
Sathi Vijay Kumar Appellant Vs. Tota Singh and others Respondents, decided on 12/8/2006.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: election petition challenging the election on the ground of corrupt practice.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 218(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4055 of 2006)
Lalsai Khunte Appellant Vs. Nirmal Sinha & Ors Respondents, decided on 2/27/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: election petition – allowed by the learned single Judge in part and set aside the election of the appellant for Malkharaud Assembly constituency to the Chhattisgarh Legislative Assembly — The appellant Lalsai though he was convicted and was disqualified but mislead the returning officer and concealed the vital information in the affidavit of his conviction. Therefore, the returning officer could not cancel his nomination. The lost candidate filed the present election petition raising the question of disqualification of appellant under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 — whether the view taken by the learned single Judge of the High Court is correct or not?
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 855(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3553-3554 of 2005)
Pothula Rama Rao Appellant Vs. Pendyala Venakata Krishna Rao and others Respondents, decided on 8/2/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 116 — appeals order — preferred against the order dated 10.2.2005 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, allowing application nos. 1064 and 1065 of 2004 in election petition No. 2/2004 and consequently rejecting the said election petition filed by the appellant — the High Court had rightly struck off the pleadings contained in paras 8 and 9 of the election petition. The High Court was also right in holding that paras 10 and 11 did not disclose any cause of action to proceed with the matter. There were no other grounds challenging the election. The order allowing the applications and rejecting the election petition, does not suffer from any infirmity or error.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 1240(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2005)
Desh Raj Appellant Vs. Bodh Raj Respondent, decided on 11/30/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — statutory appeal under — filed by an election petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing his election petition No.1 of 2003 challenging the election of the respondent (Bodh Raj) as Member of Legislative Assembly from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency — the case of the appellant in brief is that 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency is reserved for scheduled castes, that he and the respondent, among others were candidates for election from the said constituency. In the said election held on 26.2.2003, the respondent secured the highest number of votes namely 24499 and was declared as elected. The respondent had in his nomination paper declared that he belongs to a scheduled caste (Lohar) and in support of his claim, had produced a caste certificate dated 16.12.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra certifying that he belonged to scheduled caste of Lohar. Only a few days before the polling, the appellant learnt that respondent does not belong to Lohar caste but belongs to ‘Tarkhan’ caste which is not a scheduled caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to Appellant, the respondent was disqualified to contest the election in the Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled caste and therefore, the election of the respondent was void — the High Court committed an error in ignoring the entries in the admission and withdrawal registers of the government primary and middle schools, Mohtli — this court allows this appeal, sets aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the returned candidate (Bodh Raj) from 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency in the 2003 Election, to be void.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 1240(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4676 of 2005)
Desh Raj Appellant Vs. Bodh Raj Respondent, decided on 11/30/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice CJI K. G. Balakrishnan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. V. Raveendran.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — statutory appeal under — filed by an election petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing his election petition No.1 of 2003 challenging the election of the respondent (Bodh Raj) as Member of Legislative Assembly from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency — the case of the appellant in brief is that 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency is reserved for scheduled castes, that he and the respondent, among others were candidates for election from the said constituency. In the said election held on 26.2.2003, the respondent secured the highest number of votes namely 24499 and was declared as elected. The respondent had in his nomination paper declared that he belongs to a scheduled caste (Lohar) and in support of his claim, had produced a caste certificate dated 16.12.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra certifying that he belonged to scheduled caste of Lohar. Only a few days before the polling, the appellant learnt that respondent does not belong to Lohar caste but belongs to ‘Tarkhan’ caste which is not a scheduled caste in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to Appellant, the respondent was disqualified to contest the election in the Assembly Constituency reserved for scheduled caste and therefore, the election of the respondent was void — the High Court committed an error in ignoring the entries in the admission and withdrawal registers of the government primary and middle schools, Mohtli — this court allows this appeal, sets aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the returned candidate (Bodh Raj) from 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency in the 2003 Election, to be void.
|
|
2007 SCCL.COM 1327(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2006 with Civil Appeal No. 5828 OF 2006)
Mohd. Akram Ansari and Naved Yar Khan Appellants Vs. Chief Election Officer & others and Haroon Yusuf and another Respondents,decided on 12/4/2007.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: election petition — whether the office of Chairperson or Members of the Wakf Board is an office of profit so as to disqualify a person from being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly of NCT of Delhi. An amendment has been brought about in the Wakf Act, 1995 by way of The Wakf (Delhi Amendment) Act, 2006 (Delhi Act 3 of 2006) by inserting Section 31A in the 1995 Act — the appellant, appearing in person, submitted that the aforesaid Section 31A came into force only in 2006, whereas the election was held in 2003, and the election petitionwas filed on 13.1.2004. He submitted that Section 31A is not retrospective and hence will have no application to elections held before 2006 — court does not agree — it is not ordinarily open to the party to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if taken in the petition or memorandum filed before the Court below, has not been dealt with in the judgment of the Court below.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 193(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.3578 of 2005 with C.A. No. 3579 of 2005)
Dayanand Rayu Mandrekar Appellant Vs. Chandrakant Uttam Chodankar & others Respondent, decided on 1/18/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble the Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: election petition — judgment challenged in these two appeals — the election petitions were preferred by two unsuccessful candidates in the elections alleging that these two appellants were holding office of profit’ at the time when they contested the elections and, therefore, they were ineligible to be elected to the legislature — the appellants in these two cases contended before the High Court that they were not holding an ‘office of profit’ and were not receiving any salary or allowances for the said post they held and by virtue of the provision contained in the Goa, Daman and Diu Members of Legislative Assembly [Removal of Disqualifications] Act, 1982 — under Rule 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Khadi and Village Industries Board Rules, 1967 — the respondent had contended that when Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu became a State, the Assembly of the State of Goa had not passed any law nor had adopted the 1982 Act which was in force. The appellants contended that as per Section 66 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Reorganization Act, 1987, the Act of 1982 continues to be in force but this plea was rejected by the learned Single Judge — the appellants are not entitled to get the protection of the Act. Therefore, whether this Act was adopted by the State Assembly of Goa or not, need not be considered at this stage and this court leaves open the question to be considered in other appropriate cases.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 471(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 2713 of 2008)
V.A. Shabeer Appellant Vs. P.A. Niamathulla Respondent, decided on 4/10/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar.
Subject Index: Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — final Schedule — the candidates who contested the election from Ward No.2 of Alangad Block Panchayat held on 24th September, 2005. The appellant was declared elected. The candidate who lost the election (respondent herein) challenged the election by way of an election petition before the Election Tribunal mainly on two grounds. It was first contended that the officer who accepted the nomination papers of the appellant had no authority to receive the same and secondly the appellant had not made or subscribed an oath or affirmation before the Returning Officer or any other person authorized by the State Election Commission and, therefore, he was not qualified to fill a seat — this appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the appeal filed against the order of the Trial Court and declared the election of the appellant void — the election petition was opposed on the ground that the election petition was not maintainable and that it was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 656(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6807 of 2005 with Civil Appeal No. 1108 of 2007)
Sudarsha Avasthi Appellant Vs. Shiv Pal Singh Respondent, decided on 5/16/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: A) election petition — the election was held on 2.5.2002 and the result was declared on 7.5.2002. The respondent - Shiv Pal Singh was declared elected. The election of the elected representative- respondent was challenged on the ground that the result of the election had been materially affected by improper acceptance of nomination paper of respondent. Respondent committed corrupt practice by giving money directly to Ram Pratap Singh and Pradeep Kumar — no useful purpose will be served by referring to all these cases. The ratio of all these cases is that the election petition should contain the allegation of bribery in a concise manner with material particulars — no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. B) election petition — Civil Appeal No.1108 of 2007 — the election petition before the High Court was dismissed for want of prosecution as nobody appeared. The learned Judge has recorded in his order that the matter was adjourned number of times and nobody appeared. Therefore, it is not necessary to restore this petition.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 759(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.598 of 2007)
Umesh Challiyil Appellant Vs. K.P. Rajendran Respondent, decided on 2/26/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir.
Subject Index: election petition — rejection — learned Single Judge dismissed the election petition as it was not properly affirmed as under Sections 83 & 85 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — in fairness whenever such defects are pointed then the proper course for the Court is not to dismiss the petition at the threshold. In order to maintain the sanctity of the election the Court should not take such a technical attitude and dismiss the election petition at the threshold. On the contrary after finding the defects, the Court should give proper opportunity to cure the defects and in case of failure to remove/ cure the defects, it could result into dismissal on account of Order 6 Rule 17 or Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Though technically it cannot be dismissed under Section 86 of the Act of 1951 but it can be rejected when the election petition is not properly constituted as required under the provisions of the CPC but in the present case we regret to record that the defects which have been pointed out in this election petition was purely cosmetic and it does not go to the root of the matter and secondly even if the Court found them of serious nature then at least the court should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to rectify such defects.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 1211(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5743 of 2008)
Dhirendra Pandua Appellant Vs. State of Orissa and others Respondents, decided on 9/19/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain.
Subject Index: Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 — section 38 — the complainant filed an election petition under Section 38 of the Act questioning the election of the appellant as Councillor and Chairperson, on the ground that being a leprosy patient, he had incurred disqualification under Sections 16(1)(iv) and 17(1)(b) of the Act and, therefore, could not continue as such. It was alleged that the fact of his being a leprosy patient even at the time of filing of nomination was also suppressed by the appellant — denying the said allegations, it was stated that as on the date of election as Councillor as also the Chairperson, he was fully cured of the ailment and was, thus, qualified to contest the election. It was also pleaded that the election petition was barred by limitation — whether the petition was barred by limitation and (ii) whether the appellant is a leprosy patient and as such disqualified to contest and hold the posts of a Councillor and Chairperson of the Municipality.
|
|
2008 SCCL.COM 1552(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 2007)
Baldev Singh Mann Appellant Vs. Surjit Singh Dhiman Respondent, decided on 11/21/2008.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — appeal under — against the judgment dated 8.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in election petition No. 16 of 2002 — the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in section 123(7) of the said Act. The High Court observed that the evidence of corrupt practice was not strong enough to upset the people’s verdict in favour of the respondent. The High Court also observed that the appellant has failed to prove issue 5 and the additional issue framed by the High Court — the appellant has failed to prove the basic ingredients of corrupt practices under section 123(7) of the said Act. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 191(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1085 of 2009)
Sneh Gupta Appellant Vs. Devi Sarup and others Respondents, decided on 2/17/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure — order XXIII — Rule — interpretation of.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 301(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 3611 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 5774 of 2008 and 5783 of 2008)
M. J. Jacob Appellant Vs. A. Narayanan and others Respondents, decided on 3/6/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — appeals under — against the final judgment and order dated 5.5.2008 passed by the High Court of Kerala in election petition No. 2/2006, declaring the election of the appellant (M.J. Jacob) from no.79 Piravom Legislative Assembly Constituency to be a member of Kerala Legislative Assembly, the polling for which was held on 29.4.2006, as void — the High Court by the impugned judgment has declared the said election to be void on the ground that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123 (4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 — in a democracy many allegations and counter-allegations are made, and sometimes these are incorrect, but that does not mean that an election should be set aside straightaway on that account, as has been done in the present case, unless all the ingredients of Section 123(4) of the Act are clearly made out, otherwise almost every election will have to be set aside.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 312(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 719 of 2009)
Fulena Singh Appellant Vs. Vijay Kumar Sinha and others Respondents, decided on 2/5/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Subject Index: Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — Rule 93(1) — application under — allowed by the High Court — this appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 15.9.2008 passed in election petition No.1 of 2006 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna (Election Tribunal) wherein the High Court allowed the application filed by the respondent under Rule 93 (1) (dd) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — the High Court vide the impugned order permitted the parties to inspect registers 17A; prepared under the said Rule.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 800(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7457 of 2008)
Uttamrao Shivdas Jankar Appellant(s) Vs. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite-Patil Respondent(s), decided on 5/15/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. B. Sinha and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — the extent of jurisdiction of a returning officer to determine a question as to whether a nomination paper filed by an applicant to enable him to contest an election in terms of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the premise that the names of the proposers were forged is the question involved in this appeal — arises out of a judgment and order dated 26.08.2008 passed by the Bombay High Court in election petition No. 1 of 2004 — the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 913(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5891 of 2008)
Smt. Rekha Rana Appellant Vs. Jaipal Sharma and others Respondents, decided on 7/10/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Interlocutory order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in election petition challenged in this appeal — by the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the application preferred by respondent No.1 seeking a direction for opening of sealed marked electoral rolls in order to put the same to a witness summoned by him — Election to Gharaunda Assembly Constituency was held on 3rd February, 2005 and the appellant herein was declared as elected by a margin of 21 votes over the election petitioner, who got the second highest number of votes. While the appellant secured 25,237 votes, the election petitioner got 25,216 votes. The other eligible contestants, who are all party respondents in this appeal, got insignificant number of votes — the election of the appellant was challenged by the election petitioner, mainly on the ground that the appellant was the beneficiary of a large number of void votes cast in her favour by impersonation — this Court does not find any substance in the contention of learned counsel that the twin conditions as contemplated in Rule 93 were not satisfied — no merit in the appeal.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 2036(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5679 of 2009)
Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Appellant Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar Respondent, decided on 8/20/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi.
Subject Index: Representation of the people act, 1951 — Section 100 & 123 — grounds for declaring election to be void & corrupt practices — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — order 6 rule 16 and order 7 rule 11(a) — striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint — election petition by respondent no. 1 — challenged appellant’s election on ground of corrupt practices i.e. appellant dug bore wells in the constituency and provided ambulances after election notification issued — to lure the voters — no material facts proved by respondent no.1 to establish the existence of cause of action — (whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed because of lack of material facts? — yes — election petition does not disclose any cause of action — election petition dismissed — appeal allowed.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 2045(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6269 of 2008)
G.V. Sreerama Reddy and another Appellant(s) Vs. Returning Officer and others Respondent(s), decided on 8/11/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 81(1) — Presentation of election petition — election held — Election Commission announced appellant No. 1 as successful candidate and declared him elected — application of re-counting by second respondent — second respondent declared elected — whether the election petition presented was in accordance with Section 81(1) of the Act and whether the High Court was right in dismissing the same as it was not presented by the candidate or elector? — held Yes — presenting an election petition by candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to curtail vexatious litigations — failure to adhere such course — election petition liable to be dismissed on ground of improper presentation — High Court correctly dismissed election petition — civil appeal dismissed with no costs.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 2071(Case/Appeal No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 448 of 2006 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 411 of 2006)
Consumer Education & Research Society Petitioner/Appellant Vs. Union of India and others Respondents, decided on 8/24/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, Amendment Act, 2006 — ‘Offices of Profit’ — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 101 to 104 — Disqualification for membership — challenging the validity of Amendment Act, 2006, the petitioners contended that the amendment was violative of the Articles 101 to 104 of the Constitution — whether the Amendment Act retrospectively exempting certain offices of profit from disqualification, violates Articles 101 to 104 of the Constitution and is therefore invalid? — whether exemption of 55 officers relating to statutory bodies/non-statutory bodies, without referring the proposal to the Joint Committee would render the Amendment a colourable legislation which violated any ‘constitutional convention’ or Article 14 of the Constitution? — No — disqualification when declared by the President will become operative from the date the Member accepted the ‘office of profit’ — when a person who has incurred a disqualification, gets elected and no one objects and if the Returning officer accepts the nomination and no election petition is filed challenging the election, then the person would continue as a Member inspite of disqualification — held the vacancy occurs only when the President decides and declares the disqualification under Article 103 — legislation is constitutionally valid — writ petitions dismissed with no costs.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 2094(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5033 of 2006 With Civil Appeal No. 5777 of 2006)
P.C. Thomas Appellant Vs. P.M. Ismail and others Respondents, decided on 9/4/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Sections 123(3) & 123(5) — corrupt practices and undue influence — C.A.1 — High Court declared the election of the appellant to the Parliamentary Constituency as void and election petitioner declared elected under Section 101(b) of the Act in his place — whether charges of corrupt practices established against the appellant were correct? — Yes — election agent of the appellant arranged for printing of Ext. P1 & P2 — appellant paid the printing charges and party workers distributed documents in the houses of electors — though consent of the appellant for printing Ext. P1 & P2 not proved by direct evidence but inference possible that the circulation of Ext. P1 & P2 was with the knowledge of the appellant — no interference to the order of High Court — appeal dismissed with no cost — C.A. 2 — appellant-2 contended that High Court should have declared him as elected for the Parliamentary Constituency instead of election petitioner while setting aside the election of appellant in C.A. 1 — fresh election to the said Constituency already took place — appeal infructuous and thus dismissed.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3025(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 6128 of 2008)
Ram Sukh Appellant(s) Vs. Dinesh Aggarwal Respondent(s), decided on 9/18/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 100(1)(d)(iv) and 83(1)(a) — grounds for declaring election to be void and contents of the election petition — respondent 1 declared elected to the State Legislative Assembly — appellant challenged the election on ground that the returning officer failed to circulate the attested signatures of his election agent to various polling stations — HC concluded that the concise statement of the appellant about material facts completely lacked and mandatory requirement of an affidavit in support of the allegations of corrupt practices not complied with — whether the election petitioner set out “material facts” in his petition? — No — whether the alleged omission on the part of the Returning Officer ipso facto “materially affected” the election result? — No — election petitioner not averred specifically in what manner the result of the election was materially affected due to the omission on the part of the Returning Officer — no interference in the orders of the HC — appeal dismissed with no cost.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3087(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5462 of 2008)
Udey Chand Appellant Vs. Surat Singh and another Respondents, decided on 10/9/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — Section 176 — determination of validity of election enquiry — appellant declared elected by a margin of 4 votes against respondent — result complied by the Returning Officer issue canvassed before the Tribunal regarding irregularity in counting and declaration of result by the Returning Officer — serious allegations of misconduct levelled against Returning Officer — no documentary or oral evidence produced on the basis whereof the Tribunal directed re-counting of votes — allegations in the election petition were not only vague, even the basic material facts as could have made the Tribunal reach a prima facie satisfaction that re-count of ballots was necessary were missing in the petition — election petitioner failed to discharge the allegation of irregularity on the part of the Returning Officer —election petition rejected lacking material facts — appeal allowed — order of Election Tribunal directing re-counting of votes set aside.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3165(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 7701 of 2009)
Kattinokkula Murali Krishna Appellant Vs. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao and others Respondents, decided on 11/23/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha.
Subject Index: Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 — Section 233 — election petition — election for the post of Sarpanch — appellant declared elected — Election Tribunal concluded that the election petitioner had failed to make any specific allegation as to on which table the votes polled in his favour were mixed with the votes polled in favour of the appellant and on which table the votes polled in his favour were rejected as invalid — yet Tribunal directed for re-count of ballot papers — High Court affirmed the direction of Election Tribunal — appeal — Election Tribunal itself observed that the election petitioner had failed to state any material facts regarding the failure of the Election Officer to mention reasons for rejection of votes — held the doctrine of prejudice an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count which may breach the secrecy of ballot — no material on record on the basis whereof the Election Tribunal ordered re-count of the ballot papers — order of the Election Tribunal as affirmed by the High Court set aside — appeal allowed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the appellant.
|
|
2009 SCCL.COM 3206(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4201 of 2008)
Laxmi Kant Bajpai Appellant Vs. Hazi Yaqoob and others Respondents, decided on 12/8/2009.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 — election petition — appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 1 and pleaded that the names of the 21 localities have been wrongfully included in the electoral roll of the relevant constituency — High Court dismissed theelection petition for non-disclosure of cause of action — appeal — once an electoral roll is published, it becomes the final electoral roll of the constituency — the Court not empowered to decide any issue relating to issuance or revision of an electoral roll — no delimitation of the Meerut Constituency by the Delimitation Commission — no order by the Election Commission for the alteration of the electoral rolls of the Constituency — no fault on the part of the authorities, so as to render any votes void — held no interference to the well-reasoned and justified order of the High Court in dismissing the election petition as not disclosed any material facts — appeal dismissed — no costs.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 84(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2928 of 2008)
Tukaram S. Dighole Appellant(s) Vs. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate Respondent(s), decided on 2/5/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — election petition — filed by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had appealed to the electorate to vote on communal lines and in support of the allegation, a cassette containing speeches made by him and his agents, along with its transcript was produced — the Tribunal dismissed the election petition and held that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had indulged in any corrupt practices — appeal — whether the Tribunal was justified in discarding the cassette placed on record by the appellant to prove the allegation of appeal by the respondent to the voters to vote on communal ground, amounting to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Act? — Yes — appellant failed to produce the receipt stated to have been issued by the Election Commission’s office — in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the source and the manner of its acquisition, the authenticity of the cassette not proved and could not be read in evidence despite the fact that the cassette is a public document — appellant failed to lead any evidence to prove the authenticity of the cassette as well as the accuracy of the speeches purportedly made by the respondent — held no interference to the impugned orders of the Tribunal — appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 361(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 638 of 2007)
K.K. Ramachandran Master Appellant Vs. M.V. Sreyamskumar and others Respondents, decided on 7/6/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: election petition — Representation of People Act — Section 86 — aggrieved by the election of respondent No.1 the appellant filedelection petition alleging that the returned candidate had committed several corrupt practices within the meaning of Sections 123(1)(A), 123(4), 123(5) and 123(6) of the Representation of People Act that rendered his election liable to be set aside — the High Court dismissed the petition and observed that the averments made in the petition were insufficient to disclose a complete cause of action or give rise to a triable issue — appeal — the election petition specifically alleged that the printing, publication and distribution of the material by the first respondent, his election agent and other agents, workers and campaigners was with his consent and connivance which materially affected the result of the election in so far as the same concerned the appellant and the returned candidate. Further alleged that the publication of the baseless and false news item on the eve of the election without affording an opportunity to explain the real facts to the public as well as to the affected voters was totally mala fide and was calculated to prejudicially affect his election prospects — this Court held that the averments made in the election petition sufficiently disclose a cause of action & give sufficient particulars that would justify the grant of an opportunity to the appellant to prove his allegations — impugned order of the High Court set aside and matter remanded back to the High Court for disposal of the election petition in accordance with the law — appeal allowed — no costs.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 374(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5561 of 2008)
Pradip Buragohain Appellant Vs. Pranati Phukan Respondent, decided on 7/7/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Section 116-A — appeal under — election petition — challenging the election of the respondent to the Assam State Legislative Assembly on the ground that the same was vitiated by several acts of corrupt practice — dismissed — the High Court held that a corrupt practice ought to be established by cogent and reliable evidence which evidence the appellant had failed to adduce — the evidence adduced by the appellant to substantiate the charges levelled by him against the respondent comprises oral depositions of as many as 30 witnesses including the appellant himself which did not inspire confidence and was therefore insufficient to establish the charge of corrupt practice levelled against the respondent — non-production of the documents admittedly available with the appellant give rise to an adverse inference against the appellant that either such complaints were never made or if the same were made they did not contain any charge regarding the commission of corrupt practices by the respondent in the manner and on the dates and the places alleged in the petition — held that absence of a plausible explanation for non-production of the documentary evidence would completely discredit the version which the oral evidence attempts to support — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 422(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5851 of 2010)
Md. Alauddin Khan Appellant Vs. Karam Thamarjit Singh Respondent, decided on 7/22/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.:— Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 100(1)(d) — election petition under — to declare the election of the appellant void — Section 97 — recrimination when seat claimed — the election of the appellant-returned candidate was challenged by the respondent — the appellant challenged the maintainability of the election petition on technical grounds and made several statements in the nature of counter claim/recrimination. The respondent thereafter filed an application under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure for striking off the paragraphs allegedly made by way of counter claim/recrimination — the Election Judge directed to struck off those paragraphs from the defence pleaded — appeal — when there is no provision and right vested in the returned candidate to file a recrimination petition due to absence of a prayer by the election petitioner in the election petition seeking for his declaration (or any other candidate) as a returned candidate, can the returned candidate in his written statement take up pleas which are in fact counter claims with the aid of Order VIII, Rule 6A of the Code? — held no — appeal dismissed. V.S. Sirpurkar, J.:— Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 100(1)(d) — CPC, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — the election petitioner stated that the elected candidate has received some votes which were cast by some impersonators of the dead voters. The appellant/elected candidate therefore, raised a question that, if at all recount had to be ordered, the votes of all the candidates who contested the election should be counted — this Court opined that the plea raised by the appellant was not in the nature of recrimination, but, thereby the election candidate was setting up a valid defence that the void votes were cast not only in the polling Stations named in the election petition, but in some other polling Stations also. Therefore, if recount was to be ordered, the recount cannot be restricted only to the named polling Stations in the election petition, but it would have to be a general recount where the void votes would have to be avoided — held the Learned Designated Election Judge was not right in striking out those paragraphs and the application under Order VI Rule 16, CPC was liable to be dismissed — the Registry is directed to put the papers before the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice of India for referring the matter to an appropriate bench
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 624(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7284 of 2008)
M. Chandra Appellant Vs. M. Thangmuthu and another Respondents, decided on 9/7/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Representations of the Peoples Act, 1951 — sections 5(a), 100(1)(a) and 125-A — election petition under — questioning the election of the appellant — on the ground that the appellant professes Christianity — the High Court held that the appellant belongs to Pallan Christian Community and she could not have contested the Assembly elections from reserved constituency and, therefore, declared her election as void — appeal — the appellant admitted that her father was Christian but her mother was Hindu throughout and the marriage of her parents took place as per the customs prevailing in Hindu Pallan community. Though she was following Hindu customs, traditions, ceremonies and the other customs prevailing in Hindu Pallan Community in order to reaffirm her faith in Hinduism, she went through various rituals in Arya Samaj — nothing on record to show that the community certificate was issued illegally or in contravention of the valid procedure — though the appellant has not produced the original conversion certificate, there is no reason to disbelieve the duplicate that she has submitted, as the petitioner has failed to provide a reasoned rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the appellant, to proof her case — this court held that though the charges are not those of corrupt practices, they are not any lesser in terms of seriousness; hence the burden of proof is on the election petitioner to prove the charges he has made beyond reasonable doubt. However, the election petitioner has not been able to prove conclusively that the appellant professes Christianity — impugned order by the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 836(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2719 of 2006)
Govind Singh Appellant(s) Vs. Harchand Kaur Respondent(s), decided on 11/22/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116 A — appeal under — section 123(1) r/w section 100 (1)(b) — corrupt practice — indulgence in — the respondent challenged the election of the appellant alleging illegal acts of omission and commission at the instance of the appellant which amounted to indulgence in corrupt practice — the High Court declared the election of the appellant, as MLA to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the reserved 82-Sherpur (S.C.) Assembly Constituency as void and hence was set aside — appeal — whether the appellant -returned candidate had indulged in corrupt practice or not while contesting in the Assembly Election of Sherpur Constituency — the appellant had resigned as Social Security Minister on January, 12 2002 and filed his nomination subsequently on 23rd January, 2002. Hence, no question of misuse of power by him after he resigned from the post of Social Security Minister as also the party — this Court observed that where the appellant in discharge of his official duty distributed, sanctioned, approved or permitted the grant of old age/widow/handicapped pension prior to the filing of his nomination he cannot be held to have committed corrupt practice which was clearly within his legal and official domain as he was not a candidate in the election — the testimony of PW-9, PW-10, PW-11 failed to stand the test of scrutiny to the extent that even though the appellant was alleged to have indulged in corrupt practice, the same do not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant had indulged in corrupt practice merely on account of the fact that he had distributed old age pension or handicapped and widow pension to the voters of his constituency although he was the Minister holding the portfolio of Social Security Minister within whose domain lay the approval and distribution of pension which was in clear discharge of official duty — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 854(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 2006)
Tassadiq Hussain Appellant(s) Vs. Mohd. Rashid Qureshi & others Respondent(s), decided on 11/23/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 — section 123 — appeal under — section 50 — composition of Legislative Council — election petition — filed by the respondent No.1 — challenging election of the appellant — on the ground that the appellant, being ineligible to contest the election, his election was null and void — the ld. Single Judge declared the election of the appellant as void and in place of the appellant the respondent No. 1, is proclaimed as elected — appeal — whether the expression “Poonch District” used in the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 50 reserving a seat in the Legislative Council for the resident of Poonch District means Poonch District as it existed when the election notification was published or it includes Rajouri also — whether the District Rajouri was ever constituted and notified under the law as a part of Poonch District prior to or on the date of commencement of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 — this Court found that Rajouri was never part of Poonch District either before or after the commencement of the Constitution — no material produced on record by the appellant to indicate, even remotely, that a resident of Rajouri is called or known as resident of Poonch District for the purposes of the proviso to sub-Section (3) of Section 50 of the Constitution — held that the High Court was justified in not dismissing the petition filed by the respondent No. 1, questioning the election of the appellant as a Member of the Legislative Council on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had failed to discharge the burden of proof — appeal dismissed — no costs.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 880(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 5310 of 2005)
Joseph M. Puthussery Appellant(s) Vs. T.S. John & others Respondent(s), decided on 12/1/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — appeal under — section 123(4) — corrupt practise — charges of —election petition — the election of the appellant as Member of Kerala Legislative Assembly declared void on the ground that he was guilty of the corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the Act as he extensively distributed directly and through UDF workers, who did so with his consent, the copies which contained statements of fact, which were false and which he believed to be false or did not believe to be true in relation to the personal character and conduct of the respondent No. 1 — whether it is satisfactorily established that the appellant himself had distributed the pamphlets in question on May 8 and May 9, 2001 — no — whether it is satisfactorily proved by the respondent No. 1 that whether the pamphlets in question were distributed by the workers of UDF — no — PW-12, PW-13, PW-14, PW-15, PW-17 and PW-21 were not independent witnesses and had affiliation with the party to which the respondent No. 1 belongs. Apart from the evidence of PW-12 to PW-21, who are his own party workers and/or interested witnesses, the official evidence has completely disproved the case of the respondent No. 1, because PW-7 specifically stated that the seven UDF workers were not arrested and so the appellant had no occasion to get them released — nothing on the record to show that the appellant had indulged in the act of distribution of pamphlets and thus committed a corrupt practice — this Court opined that once the respondent No. 1 has failed to prove that seven UDF workers, who were distributing the pamphlets, were arrested and lodged in the police station and that the appellant had gone to the police station and got the seven workers released from the police station, the further case of the respondent No. 1, that the appellant himself had distributed the offending pamphlets and directed others to distribute the pamphlets, becomes highly doubtful and improbable — the finding, recorded by the High Court that the pamphlets were distributed on May 8 and May 9, 2001, is not only perverse but contrary to the facts proved and, therefore, set aside and the judgment declaring the election of the appellant as void also set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 883(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 10244 of 2010)
Election Commission of India Appellant(s) Vs. Telangana Rastra Samithi & another Respondent(s), decided on 12/3/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — sections 151A, 84,98, 101 and 150 — interpretation of — the bye-elections of 2 Assembly Constituencies were not notified on account of the fact that election petitions were pending in which the petitioners had sought to be declared elected. The decision of the Election Commission of India, not to hold bye-elections in the two constituencies was challenged — the High Court held that a Court should decide a case as per the law as on the existing date of adjudication. Therefore, directed elections be held in the two constituencies, since ignoring the provisions of Section 151A of the 1951 Act would amount to violation of Article 327 and valid law made by Parliament — appeal — whether Section 151A read with Sections 84, 98, 101 and 150 of the 1951 Act, was mandatory or only directory — this Court held that the introduction of Section 151A in the Constitution did not alter the position as far as the provisions of Section 84 and consequently 98(c) and 101(b) of the 1951 Act are concerned, since although a casual vacancy may have occurred within the meaning of Section 150 of the 1951 Act, those vacancies in which election petitions had been filed and were pending cannot be held to have become available for the purposes of being filled up within the time prescribed under Section 151A of the 1951 Act — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.
|
|
2010 SCCL.COM 893(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 10244 of 2010)
Election Commission of India Appellant(s) Vs. Telangana Rastra Samithi & another Respondent(s), decided on 12/8/2010.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.Patnaik.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 151-A — interpretation of — with regard to the holding of elections in a vacancy within six months from the date of such vacancy where an election petition is pending — disposed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 48(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 4820 of 2007)
Kalian Kumar Gogoi Appellant Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & another Respondents, decided on 1/18/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — Election Rules, 1961 — section 116A — appeal under — section 100(1)(d)(iv) — breach of the provision of — sections 80, 80(A) and 81 — election petition filed under — to declare the election of the respondent No. 2, to be void and to order repoll in Polling Station No. 124 Manik Dutta L.P. School (Madhya) of 116 Dibrugarh Legislative Assembly Constituency — rejected — hence, the appeal — whether there had been or not a breach of the Act and the Rules in the conduct of the election at this constituency — whether the burden has been successfully discharged by the election petitioner that the poll would have gone against the returned candidate if the breach of the provisions of the Act and the Rules had not occurred and proper poll had taken place at the notified polling station — no — the learned Judge held that initially voting, which had taken place at the non-notified place, had not materially affected the election result of the respondent No. 2 — non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Election Rules of 1961 was by the officers, who were in-charge of the conduct of the election and not by the elected candidate — the analysis of the evidence tendered by the witnesses of the appellant showed that none of them had seen big number of voters, i.e., 200/300 returning back without casting their votes, because the polling station was initially arranged at a non-notified place and was subsequently shifted to the notified place — the appellant totally failed to prove that the election of the respondent No. 2, who is returned candidate, was materially affected because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or Rules or Orders made under it — impugned orders of the ld. Single Judge upheld — appeal dismissed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 64(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 870 of 2011)
Kalyan Singh Chouhan Appellant Vs. C.P. Joshi Respondent, decided on 1/24/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — sections 80, 81, 100(1)(d) (iii) — election petition under — Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 — Rule 42 — during the process of polling there had been allegations at various booths that at least 10 votes alleged to have been cast by imposters and thus, 10 tendered votes were cast — the appellant preferred an application to summon the marked copies of the electoral rolls; register of voters and list of tendered votes relating to the polling station nos.68, 124 and 192 of the constituency — the High Court rejected the application on the ground that it was not permissible to summon the said documents, i.e., those tendered votes in respect of which none of the parties had taken the pleadings nor an issue had been framed in respect of those tendered votes and, thus, it was not permissible to lead any evidence on the fact which is not in issue — appeal — the case has been limited only to 6 tendered votes. The other 4 tendered votes neither had been relied upon in the reply by the appellant nor had been entered in the list of documents — election petitioner pleaded that the result of the election stood materially affected because of improper receiving the six tendered votes and in absence of any Recrimination Petition in the case the appellant cannot be permitted to lead evidence on the fact which is not in issue — held no cogent reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment and order of the High Court — appeal dismissed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 317(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 4129 of 2009)
P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian Appellant Vs. Mr. P. Veldurai Respondent, decided on 4/13/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Gyan Sudha Misra.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — section 116A — appeal under — section 9A — disqualification under — election petitionfiled — to declare the election of the Returned Candidate, viz., the respondent, from 220 - Cheranmahadevi Assembly Constituency of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly as null and void — on the ground of having incurred disqualification since the respondent had subsisting contracts with the Government, his nomination papers liable to be rejected — petition dismissed — hence, the appeal — the power to terminate the contract in terms of Government Order was only with the Chief Engineer and neither the Divisional Engineer was competent to terminate the contracts awarded to the respondent nor the Superintending Engineer was competent to ratify an order passed by the Divisional Engineer cancelling the contracts awarded to the respondent, thus, the action of the Superintending Engineer in ratifying the cancellation of the contracts made by the Divisional Engineer is of no consequence — the record nowhere shows that the contracts entered into between the respondent and the Superintending Engineer, Tirunelveli were ever terminated by the Chief Engineer in terms of Government Order, therefore, on the date of filing of nomination papers and scrutiny of the same, the respondent had not validly terminated the contracts entered into by him with the Government and was disqualified not only to file his nomination papers but also to contest the election in question — the respondent having incurred disqualification under the provisions of Section 9A, his election from the Constituency in question is declared to be illegal, null and void — appeal allowed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 450(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No(s). 6391-6393 of 2010)
Kodikunnil Suresh @ J. Monian Appellant Vs. N.S. Saji Kumar, Etc. Etc. Respondents, decided on 5/12/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Patnaik.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116 A — appeal under — section 100(1)(a) — election petitions filed — the election of the appellant to the House of People from the Mavelikkara Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes declared void under section 100(1)(g) on the ground that only a Hindu can be a Scheduled Caste and the appellant being a Christian, he was not qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House of the People — the entries of the School Admission Register and of the School Leaving Certificate indicate that the appellant was a Christian. However, the evidence of the appellant, President of the Kerala Hindu Mission and the Certificate issued by the Kerala Hindu Mission clearly establish that the appellant had on his own volition decided to reconvert to Hinduism — the Supreme Court opined that the appellant reconverted to Hinduism in 1978 after fully realizing the religious significance and social consequences of his decision to reconvert to Hinduism — the fact that the appellant has been elected four times from the Adoor Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Caste establish that he has been accepted by the members of his caste after his reconversion to Hinduism — impugned order of the High Court set aside and the appellant was held qualified under Section 4(a) of the Act to be chosen to fill the seat in the House of People from Mavelikkara Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes — election petitions dismissed — appeals allowed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 470(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No. 5142 of 2011 With Civil Appeal No. 5143 of 2011)
Nandiesha Reddy Appellant Vs. Mrs. Kavitha Mahesh Respondent, decided on 7/8/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
Subject Index: Representation of People Act, 1951 — sections 83 and 86 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16, Order VII Rule 11 — applications filed under — for dismissal of election petition — dismissed — hence, the petitions — appellant got elected to the Karnataka Assembly from K.R.Pura Assembly Constituency — election petition filed challenging the Election of the Returned Candidate on the ground of illegal rejection of nomination paper at threshold by the Returning Officer — the election petitioner averred that nomination paper was signed by 10 electors — the Supreme Court opined that when a nomination paper is presented it is the bounden duty of the Returning Officer to receive the nomination, peruse it, point out the defects, if any, and allow the candidate to rectify the defects and when the defects are not removed then alone the question of rejection of nomination would arise — held that the election petitioner had disclosed material facts and the matter is fit to go for trial — appeals dismissed.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 773(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.7923 of 2010)
Gajanan Samadhan Lande Appellant(s) Vs. Snjay Shyamrao Dhotre Respondent(s), decided on 11/30/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116-A — appeal under — section 10 — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 102 (1) (a) — disqualification for office under Government company — election petition filed against the validity of the election of the returned candidate — on the ground of his disqualification as he was holding the ‘office of profit’ under the Government company being a Director of the Maharashtra Seeds Corporation — dismissed — hence, the appeal — the returned candidate is elected Director from the Growers constituency on the Board of the Corporation and is neither managing agent nor manager nor secretary in the Corporation. He was holding an elected office and not an office by appointment and thus the returned candidate does not hold an office much less an ‘office of profit’ under the Government — order of the High Court upheld — appeal dismissed — no costs.
|
|
2011 SCCL.COM 788(Case/Appeal No: Civil Appeal No.4956 of 2010 With C.A. No. 4962 of 2010)
Ramesh Rout Appellant(s) Vs. Rabindra Nath Rout Respondent(s), decided on 12/9/2011.
Name of the Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. M. Lodha and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — section 116 A r/w section 116 C — appeals filed under — Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 — election petitions filed challenging the election of the appellant to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency — on the ground of improper rejection of nomination papers of the proposed candidate — the High Court declared the election of the appellant null and void — hence, the appeals — whether it is mandatory for a candidate set up by a recognised political party to file original ink signed Forms A and B appended to para 13 of the 1968 Order — to consider — non-compliance of requirements of para 13 of the 1968 Order, is a defect of substantial character and the nomination paper of a candidate proposed by a single elector set up by a recognised political party having such defect is liable to be rejected as it tantamounts to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 33, namely, the nomination paper having not been completed in the prescribed form thus, it was necessary for the proposed candidate that Forms A and B referable to clauses (b), (c) and (d) of para 13, 1968 Order were submitted to the Returning Officer duly signed in ink by the authorised person of BJD — the Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer ought to have afforded an opportunity to the election petitioner until next day to rebut the objection and show to the Returning Officer that the proposed candidate had filed Forms A and B duly singed in ink by the authorised person of BJD, therefore, the election petitioners proved the improper rejection of the proposed candidate’s nomination paper and hence proved the ground for setting aside appellant’s election to 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency under Section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act — appeals dismissed — no cost.
|
