Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.67 seconds)
Sahdeo Yadav @ Sahdeo Pd. Yadav vs Election Commissioner And Ors. on 27 August, 2003 cites

Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977

27. Similar question arose for consideration in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and the apex Court held that "the conclusion is, therefore, irresistible that the jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot consider the correctness, legality or otherwise of the direction for cancellation integrated with re-poll because prima facie purpose of such re-poll was to restore a detailed poll process and to complete it through the salvationary effort of a re-poll. Whether in fact or law, the order is validly made within his powers or violative of natural justice can be examined later by the High Court as an Election Tribunal. If the regular poll, for some reasons, has failed to reach the goal of choosing the returned candidate and to achieve this object a fresh poll (not a new election) is needed, it may still be a step in the election. Hence, the writ application challenging the cancellation coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a step in election and is, therefore, barred by Article 329(b).
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 4221 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Election Commission Of India Through ... vs Ashok Kumar & Ors on 30 August, 2000

25. The apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India (supra), also held that the words "superintendence, direction and control" have a wide connotation so as to include therein such powers which though not specifically provided but are necessary to be exercised for, effectively accomplishing the task of holding the elections to their completion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 583 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next