Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.56 seconds)

C.R.Jayasukin vs The Tamilnadu State Election ... on 17 July, 2019

13. Noticing how at the completion of the delimitation process there were only 31 revenue districts, but despite a subsequent increase in number of districts to 39, no fresh delimitation exercise has been undertaken, it is clear that the State Government cannot fulfil the aforestated constitutional mandate. There is no identified data elucidating population proportions and, hence, requisite reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be provided for, both in re village panchayat wards or Chairman/Vice-Chairman of District bodies. We, hence, have no doubt that the election process as notified by the State Election Commission on 2-12-2019, in respect of the newly constituted nine districts cannot be held unless fresh delimitation exercise in respect thereto is first completed. The State Government cannot justify holding local body elections of these nine districts by relying upon this Court's order dated 18-11-2019 [C.R. Jayasukin v. T.N. State Election Commission, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1664] as the said order itself mandates notification of elections only after completing "all legal formalities".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs The State Of Punjab on 31 May, 2023

Additionally, learned counsel submitted that in a case involving an almost identical factual matrix, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7307, had elaborately considered the legal position and quashed the delimitation exercise undertaken by the respondents therein, having found the same contrary to Rule 4 of the Delimitation of Wards of Municipalities Rules, 1972, applicable in the State of Punjab, which is pari materia to statutes of the Act of 2009.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Dhulia - Full Document
1