Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.28 seconds)
Vipulbhai Narvatbhai Rathod vs Election Officer on 23 December, 2020 cites

Shri Pratapgarh Seva Sahakari Mandali ... vs The Director, Agricultural Marketing ... on 21 August, 2020

In the case of Shri Pratapgarh Seva Sahakari Mandali Limited Vs. Director, Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance (Supra), upon which, reliance has been placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, this Court has observed that "Not only that after ascertaining the facts from the contemporaneous record produced by the petitioner Society, the Authorized Officer has reached to a conclusion that there is some interpolation in the agenda book as also the Resolution book...". Thus, in the said case, necessary record was produced before the authorised officer. In the present case, no such evidence was produced by the petitioner before respondent No.1. At this stage, it is also required to be noted that in the said case, this Court did not interfere with the election process and the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of authorised officer excluding the names of the Members of the Managing Committee of the concerned petitioner Society was not entertained as there was alternative remedy available to the concerned petitioner. Thus, this decision, upon which, reliance is placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner would not render any assistance to him.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 9 - U A Trivedi - Full Document

Mandropur ( Fatehpur) Juth Seva Sahkari ... vs State Of Gujarat & 5 on 14 June, 2016

6. Learned advocate Mr. Jadeja has thereafter referred the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Mandropur (Fatehpur) Juth Seva Sahkari Mandali Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2017) 2 GLR 1459 and more particularly the observations made by this Court in para 5.3, 5.4, 8 and 9 of the said decision. After referring to the said decision, it is contended that summary inquiry was a part of function of the election officer, which is to be discharged under the Rules for the purpose of preparation of list of voters'. However, in the present case, respondent No.1 has failed to make any summary inquiry and therefore the impugned order passed by the respondent be quashed and set aside and the name of respondent No.2 be removed from the voters' list.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 35 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Aaroh Ramai Mahila Bachat Gat Thr. ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 29 July, 2019

In the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde V/s. State of Maharashtra (supra), the parties to a writ petition obtained a collusive order by applying fraud on the Court and such an order was made basis of the election. In that context, it was held that so long as the order of the High Court continues, the tribunal would be bound by that order of the High Court and, therefore, the writ petition was maintainable and the same cannot be thrown out on the ground of an alternative remedy. Again, that is not the case of the appellant and, therefore, the same is distinguishable.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Z A Haq - Full Document
1