Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.56 seconds)
Maharashtra Wine Merchants ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 21 May, 1991 cites

Kanhiya Lal Omar vs R.K. Trivedi And Ors. on 24 September, 1985

6. A bare narration of sequence of events is enough to hold at this prima facie stage that both the Government of Maharashtra and the Collectors in the State have felt themselves bound by the directives of the Election Commission of India and an attempt is now being made to salvage the situation by contending that the respondent No. 2 has acted on his own assessment. If I have to attach due weightage to the terminology used in the wireless message dated 17th May 1991 a copy whereof is at Exhibit 'A' to Writ Petition No. 1827 of 1991, I must interpret the said wireless message to mean that the Election Commission of India appears to be under the honest erroneous belief that it can impose ban on the sale of the liquor throughout the country notwithstanding the contents of Acts and the rules which may be in force in a particular State. I have no doubt that the Election Commission of India must have acted in good faith and the State Government must have also directed the Collectors to implement the directions of Election Commission in good faith. The question arises as to whether the Election Commission has any authority of law to impose any ban on sale of liquor. The question which further arises is as to whether the directives of Election Commission of India as reflected in wireless message are in conformity with the law of the land. Art. 324 of the Constitution of India confers widest possible power on the Election Commission of India in relation to superintendence and conduct of the elections. It was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R. K. Trivedi, :--
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 83 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document
1