Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Prof. Balraj Madhok vs Shri Shashi Bhushan And Ors. on 21 August, 1972

Hira Singh vs Hari Ram on 8 September, 1983

Sumer Chand, Lpa 289172(18), decided on 18-4-1973 and Balraj Madhok v. Shashi Bhushan, Ep 1171(19), decided on 13-3-1972. Upon their reading, it seems to me that sufficient legislative and executive guidelines and safeguards have been provided to ensure that elections are free and fair. In order that they are free, secrecy of the ballot is required to be maintained. In order that they are fair, the elections arc conducted in full gaze of the contesting candidates and timely protests are permitted. There is, therefore, a presumption in favor of the returned candidate that he has been duly elected and that the officers concerned have performed their functions bona fide in accordance with law. Yet, one cannot altogether rule out malpractices, dereliction of duties, breaches of the law and other factors which vitiate this process. The law had, therefore, to provide that an election can be challenged by an election petition. But it cannot, however, be lodged on vague frivolous or indefinite allegations. The court must insist that an adequate statement of primary facts essential to the determination of the dispute is made concisely. It need not be precise nor detailed. Yet, an order for inspection of the ballot papers cannot be. granted just to allow the petitioner to fish out evidence to support his pleas. The defeated candidate has to place before the court evidence prima facie indicating that an order for inspection was necessary in the interest of justice. A mere allegation that he suspects or even believes or claims that by inspection and scrutiny of ballot papers he will demonstrate that there has been a misconduct is not sufficient to support an order for inspection. Yet, facts differ from case to case and it is dangerous to lay down any rigid test in the matter of ordering an inspection. But where there are serious irregularities in the matter of counting of votes, scrutiny of ballot papers should be allowed. In the special facts of a given case a sample inspection may. however, be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a recount. It can in a given case be restricted to those ballot papers only in respect of which commission of errors has been proved.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Krishnaran Anandran Dhayagude And Ors. vs Khandala Taluka Shetkari Sahakari ... on 10 November, 1981

16. The Supreme Court as far back as in the case or Dr. Sushila Balraj v. Ardnendu Bhushan. (1962 Mah LJ 65) observed that granting of an adjournment was primarily a matter for the Tribunal to consider and decide in its discretion, that thee was power in the Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to dimiss the petition for non-appearance in its discretionary powers. However, that power has to be exercised judicially. It was held by Gajendragadkar. C. J. Delivering the judgment for the bench contirming the finding of the High Court, that there was no substance in the argument urged by the respondent that the Election Tribunal hadno jurisdiction to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution. The learned Chief Justice also observed that in considering the scheme or the Representation of the People Act. What was to be borne in mind is that the election petition must be borne in mind is that the election petition must be tried as expeditously as possible. It is pertinent to note at this stage that sub-sec (4) of S. 144-T of the Act lays down that such election petition shall be heard and disposed fo by Commissioner or a specified Officer as expeditiously as possible. The reason is not for to seek. It these petitions are allowed to be conducted in a leisurely way and go on interminably, then the very object of permitting the remedy of challenging the validity of elections in good time would be defeated. That is why S. 144-T sub-sec (4) lays down that every election petition shall be tried as expeditously as possible. In determining whether the Commissioner or the specified officer for non-appearance or for default, the provisions of sub-sec (4) of S. 144-T cannot be ignored.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

P.N. Vallarasu vs Election Commission Of India And Ors. on 17 December, 1984

Reference was also made to a decision of the Delhi High Court in Balraj Madhok V. Shashi Bhushan, ILR (1971) 2 Delhi 614, in which the Delhi High Court had observed that when the High Court deals with an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, the High Court exercises a special jurisdiction in accordance with the law which creates it and, that an election court even though it be the High Court having pre-existing ordinary an extraordinary jurisdiction, can try an election petition or pass orders there in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1