Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 93 (1.33 seconds)
Documents citing Mohan Lal Tripathi vs District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly And ... on 15 May, 1992

Surekha Sanjay Lahane vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 26 October, 2023

27. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the ::: Uploaded on - 26/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 22/02/2024 19:34:02 ::: 49 wp 11792.2023 legislature for his removal (Vide: Jyoti Basu and Ors. v. Debi Ghosal and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983; Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rai Barelly and Ors., AIR 1993 SC 2042; and Ram Beti etc. v. District Panchayat Rajadhikari and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1222 : (1998 AIR SCW 1059).
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Kumaradas vs The Indian Medical Practitioners' ... on 23 January, 2007

30. The respondents have heavily relied on the pronouncement of the Apex Court in , Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly and Ors. In this case, challenge was laid to the validity of the no confidence motion passed on the 29th March, 1990 under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act by the board against the appointment which was effected by the electorate directly under Section 43 (2) of the Act as President of the Rae Bareilly City Municipal Board. One of the grounds of challenge was on the ground of absence of a specific provision applying under Section 47-A and 87-A of the Act to the President elected by the electorate.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - G Mittal - Full Document

Anuj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 February, 2023

50. This submission though seemed convincing at the first blush but on a deeper scrutiny of the same, we find that no "vested right" or "accrued right" can be said to have been created in favour of the elected members by mere moving of the motion of No-Confidence against the Pramukh. The observations of the Apex Court in Mohan Lal Tripathi Vs. District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly26 while dealing with the challenge to the amendment for reduction of period during which a motion of No Confidence could be tabled against the President of the Municipal Board, from 'two' to 'one' year are relevant to be noted here:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vikas Trivedi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 April, 2013

There cannot be any dispute to the proposition as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment that elected member can be removed only after following the procedure strictly prescribed for removal after giving due opportunity. The said case was a case of removal and those observations were made by the Apex Court since there was violation of principles of natural justice in removing the appellant of that case. The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment also held that there was no reason given in the order. The said case does not help the appellant in facts of the present case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 20 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Rameshwar Nekhra vs The State Bar Council Of M.P on 20 May, 2011

The correctness of the law laid down in that decision was assailed by placing reliance on AIR 1954 SC 210 'Jagan Nath Vs Jaswant Singh', (1982) 1 SCC 691 'Jyoti Basu Vs. Debi Ghoshal', (1984) 1 SCC 91 'Arun Kumar Bose Vs. Mohd. Furkan Ansari' and (1992) 4 SCC 80 'Mohan Lal Tripathi Vs District Magistrate', and it was argued that 'concepts familiar to common law and equity must remain stragers to 17 Election Law unless statutorily embodied'. In respect of the Kerala High Court decision it was argued that the Court fell in error in reading the power of removal as "incidental". It is not necessary to go into these arguments because as stated above the Rule regarding removal is not justified under section 15 (2) but under section 15(1) of the Act, which is of wide amplitude and there is no reason to restrict the scope of Rule making power under section 15 (1) so as to exclude
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

K. Krishna Murthy & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 11 May, 2010

45. While the exercise of electoral franchise is an essential component of a liberal democracy, it is a well-settled principle in Indian law, that the right to vote and contest elections does not have the status of fundamental rights. Instead, they are in the nature of legal rights which can be controlled through legislative means. On this point, we can refer to the following 62 observations made by R.M. Sahai, J. in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly, (1992) 4 SCC 80, Para. 2:
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 147 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Jairuparam Mali vs State & Ors on 12 January, 2012

89. In this matter various judgments have been cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Of those judgments only the judgment in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly and Ors.; 1992(4) SCC 80 is on the question of the no- confidence motion against President of the municipality elected directly by the electorate. No- confidence motion was passed by the board against the said President and not by the electorate. That was challenged. This Court replelled the challenge and upheld the no- confidence motion holding that the recall by the Board amounts to recall by the electorate itself.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A Mishra - Full Document

Pratap Chandra Mehta vs State Bar Council Of M.P.& Ors on 9 August, 2011

46. Having dealt with the primary aspect of this case, now we would consider the contention that the recall of the Chairman/Vice-Chairman, by a smaller and distinct body of members of the State Bar Council, does not fall within the purview of the authority of the delegatee Council, under Section 15(2)(c) of the Advocates Act, i.e. to legislate on `the manner of election'. Even on this ground, according to the appellants, the provisions of Rule 122-A are unsustainable. We find no merit in 56 this contention as well as it has no substance. The election to the post of Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the State Bar Council is not by the larger body, i.e., the advocates enrolled on the rolls of the State Bar Council, but is by a distinct body, i.e. elected members of the State Bar Council. Once they elect the Chairman/Vice-Chairman of the State Bar Council as per the scheme of Rules 118 to 123, then all actions taken by such body would have to be accepted by all concerned as correct, if they are within the domain of the rules governing such body. We do not consider it necessary to deliberate on this issue in any greater detail. Suffice it to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal Tripathi (supra), where the Court was concerned with an elected candidate, who, in terms of the statute, was elected by a larger electorate and was recalled by smaller representative body rather than by the electorate itself. Similar arguments were raised that the recall was violative of the spirit and purpose of the election and was arbitrary, irrational and violative of the democratic norms. These arguments were rejected by the Court, after detailed deliberation and examining the fields of democratic norms. We have already referred in 57 paragraph 37 of this judgment, the relevant parts of the said discussion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 97 - S Kumar - Full Document

Anil Agarwal & Others And Vinod Kumar & ... vs The Institute Of Chartered Accountants ... on 21 January, 2000

In the impugned judgment the High Court has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mohan Lal Tripathi Vs. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly wherein this court was dealing with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 which empowered the members of a Municipal Board to remove the President who was directly elected by the electorate by moving a motion of no confidence. The validity of the said provision was challenged before this Court on the ground that it was violative of the democratic concept since it provided for removal or recall of an elected representative by a smaller and different body then the one that elected him. The said contention was, however, rejected by this Court. It was observed : (SCC pp 84-85, 88 and 89, paras 2, 4 and 5).
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anil Agarwal vs Institute Of Chartered Accountants on 21 January, 2000

In the impugned judgment the High Court has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate, Rai Bareilly wherein this court was dealing with the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 which empowered the members of a Municipal Board to remove the President who was directly elected by the electorate by moving a motion of no confidence. The validity of the said provision was challenged before this court on the ground that it was violative of the democratic concept since it provided for removal or recall of an elected representative by a smaller and different body than the one that elected him. The said contention was, however, rejected by this court. It was observed: (SCC PP 84-85, 88 and 89, paras 2, 4 and 5).
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next