Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.38 seconds)
Kantilal Mathurdas Parikh And Ors. vs The Village Panchayat Of Shivrajpur And ... on 25 July, 1963 cites

Chief Commissioner, Ajmer vs Radhey Shyam Dani on 15 November, 1956

7. An election held under the Act having been challenged the Supreme Court held while dealing with these two sections that the relevant part of the electoral roll of the Mysore Legislative Assembly was deemed to be the list of voters for the Panchayat constituency and the Secretary of the Panchayat had to maintain a duly authenticated separate list of voters of the said constituency. The Supreme Court also held that the Mysore Act proceeded upon the basis that the voters list was final for the purpose of the election. It also held that there was no provision in the Act which enabled the High Court to set aside the election on the ground that though the name of a candidate was in the list it had been included therein illegally. In our view the interpretation put by the Supreme Court on Sections 9 and 10 of the Mysore Act the language used therein being almost similar to the language used in Sections 12 and 13 of the Act under consideration fortifies considerably the conclusion which we have arrived at upon the construction of the two sections. Mr. Shah however relied upon the decision in The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and Anr. v. Radhey Shyam Dani where there are observations to the effect that it is of the essence of the elections that proper electoral roll should be maintained and in order that proper electoral roll should be maintained it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrollment. Relying upon these observations Mr. Shah pleaded that though there was no provision for the alteration or amendment of the list of voters in the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1959 it still was the duty of the Mamlatdar to subtract the names of these 125 persons from the list of voters upon the footing that they were not the residents of Shivrajpur village site as notified under Section 4 of the Act. The facts of the case and the provisions of the Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation 1925 and the Ajmer State Municipalities election Rules 1955 were totally different from the facts and the provisions of the statute under our consideration. It is clear from the decision that these observations were made by the Supreme Court in the light of the provisions of Sections 30 and 43 of the aforesaid Regulation and would not therefore be applicable to the present case. In the view that we take of Sections 12 and 13 of the Act the second contention raised by Mr. Shah also cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 59 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next