Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.33 seconds)Kailash Chand Sharma Etc. Etc. vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 30 July, 2002
Such a circumstance disentitles the
petitioner to the issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto vide
KAILASH CHAND SHARMA vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN,
(2002) 6 SCC 562 at paragraph 46.3.
Kurapati Maria Das vs M/S. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan & Ors on 17 April, 2009
(e) Learned AGA is more than justified in seeking
dismissal of the petition by pressing into service KURAPATI
MARIA DAS vs. DR. AMBEDKAR SEVA SAMAJAN &
OTHERS, (2009) 7 SCC 387. The Apex Court at paragraphs
21 to 24 has observed as under:
Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982
It has been a settled position that law of election is what the
statute says. Common law doctrines like equity & other
remain strangers to election law vide JYOTI BASU vs. DEBI
GHOSAL, AIR 1982 SC 983. What the Apex Court observed
at paragraph 8 being instructive, is reproduced:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S. Neyvely Lignite Corpn. Ltd vs Special Tahsildar(Land Acquisition) ... on 19 October, 1994
(b) The first contention of the petitioner that the 6th
respondent does not belong to the community for which the
office of the Adhyaksha is reserved, is bit difficult to
countenance inasmuch as admittedly there is a Caste
Certificate dated 04.02.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent-
5
Tahsildar at Annexure-C. It was open to the petitioner to lay
a challenge thereto by filing appeal u/s.4(D) of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointment, etc.,) Act, 1990. Why
this alternate and equally efficacious remedy provided by the
statute is not availed by her remains inscrutable. Ordinarily,
availability of such a remedy disentitles a litigant to the grant
of a Writ of Certiorari as held by the Apex Court in NEYVELY
LIGNITE CORPORATION LIMITED v. SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS (LAND ACQUISITION)
AIR 1995 SC 1004(1).
Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993
Basanti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 24 July, 2012
(f) Very strangely, the 3rd principal prayer in the Writ
Petition is for a mandamus to the Returning Officer to declare
petitioner as elected to the office of Adhyaksha. This is
premised on the invalidation of the election of the incumbent
of the said office i.e., the 6th respondent. It hardly needs to
be stated that the Returning Officer becomes functus officio
once the election results are announced by notification vide
Jharkhand High Court decision in BASANTI DEVI vs. THE
STATE OF JHARKHAND & OTHERS L.P.A.No.420/2011
disposed off on 24.07.2012. Such a relief could have been
claimed by the petitioner in a properly constituted Election
Petition since Sec.16(3) of the 1993 Act specifically provides
for it with the following text: