Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma vs The State Election Commission & Ors on 10 September, 2014

Farzana Naz vs The State Election Commission ... on 20 September, 2016

The discretion so exercised cannot be challenged by the petitioner. He further argued that no reliance can be placed on the voter list or the voter ID for the purpose of ascertaining the date of birth of the elector. The entries in the electoral roll is only a conclusive proof of the fact that he or she is a voter of the constituency. He has also relied on 2014 (4) PLJR 667 (Annu Kumari @ Annu Sharma vs. The State Election Commission, Bihar, through its Commission, Patna & Ors.) in support of his submission.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K K Mandal - Full Document

Lalita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 2016

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 to 7, submitted that the power to go into such aspect flows from the statute which in turn has the sanction and backing of the Constitution of India. He submitted that Article 243-F(1) of the Constitution of India lays down in clear terms that the minimum age for a person to be qualified for membership of a Panchayat is 21 years. He further submitted that if with regard to the same, there is any question for deciding such disqualification, it shall be referred for the decision of such authority and in such manner as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide. It was submitted that in terms of such constitutional provision, the State Legislature in its wisdom has enunciated the disqualifications in Section 136(1) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, Patna High Court CWJC No.16753 of 2016 dt.20-12-2016 4/6 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in which it has clearly been written that a person shall be disqualified for election or after election for holding the post, meaning thereby that even after election, such disqualification can be gone into. He submitted that Section 136(2) of the Act clearly provides that the matter relating to disqualification shall be considered by the State Election Commission either in the form of a compliant, application or information by any person or authority or even suo motu. It was submitted that in the present case, the petitioner was noticed, upon receipt of complaint from respondent no. 8, and after hearing the parties, the order has been passed. He further submitted that from the order impugned itself, it is clear that all documents, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, have been mentioned and considered. Learned counsel submitted that even the Courts have held that the probative value of date of birth in Matriculation certificate has greater evidentiary value compared to the certificate issued by the Mukhiya, Headmaster of the local school or a local doctor. For such proposition, he has relied upon Division Bench judgments of this Court in the case of Annu Kumari vs. State Election Commission reported as 2014(4) PLJR 667; Smt. Sudha Kumari vs. State Election Commission reported as 2015(4) PLJR 249 and an unreported decision in the case of Rani Devi vs. The State Election Commission & Ors. in L.P.A. No. 267 of 2013 dated Patna High Court CWJC No.16753 of 2016 dt.20-12-2016 5/6 06.03.2013.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - A Amanullah - Full Document
1