Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.32 seconds)
P.Mani vs Secretary on 25 November, 2008 cites

Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965

I do not think that the decision in Brundaban Nayak's case (supra) relied upon by the Counsel for the Commission lays down any different law. In that decision what was considered was as to whether a reference under Article 192(1) to the Governor on the question of disqualification of a member of a House of the Legislature under Article 191 has to be made by the Speaker only after the issue is raised in the Assembly and whether it is the Governor or the Election Commission who has to conduct the enquiry on the reference. The Supreme Court held that under that Article all that is relevant is that a question of the type mentioned has to arise, irrespective of who raises it and the Speaker should refer it to the Governor and that question has to be decided by the Governor. That decision is not an authority for the proposition that in the absence of a referring authority no reference can be made nor that the reference has to be by petition of an aggrieved person.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 54 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

P.Y. Annamkutty vs P.M. Baby And Ors. on 6 June, 2000

9. I am of opinion that the Scheme of the Act generally also contemplates both reference as well as a petition to the W.P.(c)No.33122/08 9 Commission. One example is Section 36 relating to disqualification of a member. There, when a question arises as to whether a member has become disqualified under Section 30 or Section 35 except Clause (n) thereof, any member or any person entitled to vote can file a petition and the Secretary or an Officer authorised by the Government in this behalf can refer such a question to the State Election Commission for a decision. There the question that arises can be placed before the Commission either by reference by Secretary or by petition by a member or person entitled to vote and the Commission is required to dispose of the petition or the reference. Taking an analogy from the same, I am of opinion that the Scheme of the Act contemplates either reference or a petition, both of which would be maintainable. That being so, I am inclined to adopt the view that under Section 155 and Rule 5, the Secretary may refer the dispute regarding resignation,which arises,to the Commission or the person himself may file a petition before the Election Commission under Rule 5, either of which, if is within the time stipulated in the proviso to Section 155(3), that would be liable to be considered by the Commission on merits. I am supported in this view by the judgment of this Court in Annamkutty's case W.P.(c)No.33122/08 10 (supra), wherein interpreting the erstwhile Section 155(4) which is in pari materia with the present Section 155(3), a learned Judge of this Court held that the President who was to accept the resignation or the party can raise a dispute which has to be considered by the Commission.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - J B Koshy - Full Document
1