Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.24 seconds)
Harikrishna Chandulal Trivedi vs Sardar Patel University on 1 February, 2000 cites

Era Sezhiyan vs T.R. Balu And Ors on 1 March, 1990

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Rules required that the vote should be given in specified method and manner as contained in Statute 145 as number "1" is written on the vote in favour of the respondent no. 3 is not in standing position but it is in slanting position. Just like mark given is tick mark. This vote ought to have been declared as invalid vote by both the authorities below. Both the authorities below have committed an error on the face of the record in considering and declaring this vote as invalid vote. He has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Era Sezhiyan Vs. T.R. Balu and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 838, wherein ball-point pen was given to mark ballot paper in blue ink and that ball-point pen was of blue ink. But on particular ballot paper the voter marked the ballot paper by another ball-pen which was not in blue colour and that ballot paper was considered as an invalid by the Apex Court. In the similar manner, he contended that in present case, the voter is required to mark the ballot paper in the mode and manner prescribed thereof by the Statute. In the Statute it is clearly mentioned that figure "1" is not made in standing position, it can be rejected. As such, the decision taken by both the authorities below is erroneous on the face of the record and acceptance of the ballot paper as valid one is also illegal. On the contrary, it is contended that the finding of fact recorded by the authority concerned as to whether the mark on the ballot paper is one or not, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot disturb the finding of fact recorded by the authorities concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 29 - M H Kania - Full Document
1