Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.35 seconds)Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal vs Rajiv Gandhi on 11 May, 1987
36. After considering all relevant facts of the matter and the law applicable thereto it clearly emerges that the averments contained the election petition do not amount to any corrupt practice and at the most the same relate to irregularities and illegalities alleged to have been committed by the respondent, which would at best be relevant if there was further allegation that it materially affected the result of the election. The averments contained in paras 32 to 38 and 40 to 46 containing narration of facts about corrupt practice do not make out any corrupt practice so as require any further adjudication on merits of the matter. These allegations even if assumed to be true do not make out any case of commission of corrupt practice as enshrined in sub- section (2) or (4) of section 123 of R. P. Act. From the law laid down in case of Dhartipakar Vs Rajiv Gandhi (supra) it is clear that if the allegations made by the petitioner do not amount to any corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 123 of the R.P. Act and the period for which the respondent was elected is already over and fresh elections have taken place, the petition could be dismissed.
P.H.Paul Manoj Pandian vs P.Veldurai on 13 April, 2011
35. Learned Senior counsel for both the parties have referred the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.H.Pandian v. P.Veldurai and another, (supra), where an appeal under Section 116-A of the R.P. Act of 1951 was filed questioning the judgment made in the election petition, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though fresh elections have since been held to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and to an extent the appeal has been rendered infructuous, the manner in which the election petition was dealt with by the High Court causes concern and necessitates. In the said case, Hon'ble Apex Court made reference to some salient facts but it was observed that it is settled practice of Supreme Court not to pronounce upon matters which are only of an academic interest. Once the charge of corrupt practice fails, rest of the appeal would be rendered infructuous because fresh elections have already taken place and the old assembly is no longer in existence. It was further observed that even if the appellant therein was to succeed on the issue that the returned candidate had a subsisting contract with the Panchayat Union and the State Government and was, therefore, disqualified to be chosen for the seat under Section 9-A of the Act of 1951, it would only be of an academic interest. It was observed that appeal for all intent and purposes has been rendered infructuous and thus, appeal was disposed of. It is apparent that this case law hardly supports the case of petitioner.
Loknath Padhan vs Birendra Kumar Sahu on 16 January, 1974
In case of Loknath Padhan v. Birendra Kumar Sahu (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a Court should not undertake to decide an issue, unless it is a living issue between the parties and pointed out that if an issue is purely academic in that its decision one way or the other would have no impact on the position of the parties, it would be waste of public time and indeed not proper exercise of authority for the Court to engage itself in deciding it. It was held that an academic question, the answer to which cannot affect the position of one party or the other or which has no bearing on some right or liability in controversy between the parties, will be unnecessary and inexpedient to be decided and the Court would properly decline to decide. With reference to the election dispute before it in that case involving alleged disqualification of the returned candidate due to subsistence of five Government contracts with the Government of Orissa, the Apex Court held that even if it is found that the candidate was so disqualified, it would have no factual consequence, as invalidation of election after dissolution of the House would be meaningless and ineffectual and as it would have no consequences operating in future, as it is the only facts existing on the date of nomination that would have relevance. However, Hon'ble Apex Court distinguished the cases in which allegations of corrupt practices are involved in view of Section 8-A of RP Act under which a person found guilty of corrupt practices by an order under Section 99 R.P. Act will incur electoral disqualification up to six years from the date of the order in that regard. It was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the position might be different if the allegation against the respondent were of corrupt practice. If the respondent is found guilty of corrupt practice during the election, not only his election would be declared void, but he would also incur certain electoral disqualifications. Section 8A R.P. Act provides that a person found guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under Section 99 R.P. Act shall be disqualified for a period of six years from the date on which, that order takes effect. The purity of elections is of utmost importance in a democratic set up and the law, has, therefore, taken serious note of corrupt practice in elections and laid down a disqualification for a period of six years on an order being made by the High Court recording a finding of corrupt practice at the time of disposing of the election petition. It is, therefore, obvious that when a corrupt practice is charged against the respondent in an election petition, the trial of the election petition must proceed to its logical end but the principle was held by the Apex Court to be not applicable to disqualification, which has no other consequence than that of making the particular election void and which does not entail any electoral disqualification for the future. In that case, in view of the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, the Apex Court considered the question of disqualification to be purely academic and dismissed the appeal against the decision in the election petition as futile.
Mundrika Singh Yadav vs Shiv Bachan Yadav And Ors. on 15 September, 2003
In Mundrika Singh Yadav vs. Shiv Bachan Yadav and others ((2005) 12 SCC 211), an election petition under Sections 80 and 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. In the above said election petition, the appellant had sought for the relief of recount of ballot papers. The High Court on trial found a case in that regard having not been made out. The election to the Bihar State Assembly forming subject-matter of the election petition was held in the year 2000. The term of the Legislative Assembly was over. Fresh elections were being held. Under these circumstances, the Apex Court has held that no relief could be allowed to the appellant in this appeal even if this appeal is allowed. The appeal was rendered infructuous and was dismissed accordingly.
Kisan Shankar Kathore vs Arun Dattatraya Sawant & Ors on 9 May, 2014
In case of Kisan Shankar Kathore (supra) the election of the returned candidate was successfully challenged on the ground of non-disclosure of material information. The appeal filed by the returned candidate was dismissed by the Court by observing as follows:
Resurgence India vs Election Commission Of India & Anr on 13 September, 2013
In Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India and Anr. (supra), the Apex Court held that every candidate is obligated to file an affidavit with relevant information with regard to their criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities and educational qualification. The fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the voter was reiterated in the said judgment and it was held that filing of affidavit with blank particulars would render the affidavit as nugatory.
Kashi Nath Mishra vs Vikramaditya Pandey And Ors. on 14 March, 1996
In Kashi Nath Mishra vs. Vikramaditya Pandey and others, (supra) an appeal was filed before the Apex Court from the Election Petition No.4 of 1991 filed under Section 81 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant had challenged the election of the second respondent to the U.P. Legislative Assembly from the 227 Ballia Assembly Constituency in District Ballia. That petition was dismissed. The term of the assembly has expired by efflux of time and thereafter, another election has been held and another Assembly constituted. Under these circumstances, the appeal was dismissed having become infructuous.
Kona Prabhakara Rao vs M. Seshagiri Rao And Anr. on 9 April, 1980
SCC 93 and Kona Prabhakara Rao v. M. Seshagiri Rao (1982) 1 SCC 442). In the case in hand, neither there is any such incontrovertible and unimpeachable document, which could show that the respondent did not hold the alleged degree in Engineering/technology nor there are specific allegations that how alleged incorrect and false statement of facts favourably prejudiced the prospects of his election. Considering all these facts of the matter, the inaccuracy or concealment regarding educational qualification of the respondent did not amount to unduly influencing the voters, as the defect in disclosure was not of substantial character that could have materially prejudiced the prospects of the election, for it to be termed as a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act.
Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955
In case of Bhikaji Keshao Joshi (supra), the election petition, having inter-alia allegations of corrupt practice, was dismissed by the Tribunal on technical grounds including the infirmity in verification of pleadings but in appeal, the Hon'ble Apex Court referred back the case to the Tribunal for due enquiry and it was observed as under: