Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
Section 70 in Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N.P. Ponnuswami vs Returning Officer, ... on 21 January, 1952
"19. It is well-settled principle that where
elections are conducted in accordance with the
provisions of a statute and the statute also
provides a remedy of settlement of election
disputes by filing an election petition before a
tribunal, it is that remedy alone which should be
availed of and recourse cannot be taken to
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This view has been taken in series of decisions
rendered by this Court. The earliest decision was
rendered in N.P. Ponnuswami vs. The Returning
Officer AIR 1952 SC 64 by a Bench of six learned
Judges. In this case the nomination paper of the
appellant for election to Madras Legislative
Assembly was rejected by the Returning Officer.
The appellant challenged the rejection of the
nomination paper by filing a writ petition in the
High Court which was dismissed on the ground
that it had no jurisdi1ction to interfere with the
order of the Returning Officer on account
of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, which says
that no election to either House of Parliament or
7
to the House or either House of the Legislature of
a State shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such authority and
in such manner as may be provided for by or
under any law made by the appropriate
Legislature. In appeal, this Court examined the
question whether the writ petition would be
maintainable at the initial state against an order
rejecting the nomination paper. Certain
observations made in para 9 of the reports are
relevant and they are being reproduced below:
K.K. Shrivastava And Ors. vs Bhupendra Kumar Jain And Ors. on 15 March, 1977
In K.K. Shrivastava vs. Bhupendra Kumar
Jain AIR 1978 SC 1703, the dispute related to
election to Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh under
the Indian Advocates Act and Rule 31 of Election
Rules framed by Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh
provided that all disputes arising under the Rule
shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an
election tribunal. The defeated candidate
approached the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution challenging the validity of the
election which was allowed by the High Court.
This Court set aside the judgment of the High
Court with the following observations:[SCC p.
496, para 3]
"Where there is an appropriate or
equally efficacious remedy the Court should
keep its hands off. This is more particularly
so where the dispute relates to an election.
Still more so where there is a statutorily
prescribed remedy which almost reads in
mandatory terms."
1