Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.61 seconds)

Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 July, 2001

In Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab & Ors.5, this Court has held that holding and enjoying an office, discharging related duties is a valuable statutory right of not only the returned candidate but also his constituency or electoral college. Therefore, the procedure prescribed must be strictly adhered to and unless a clear case is made out, there cannot be any justification for his removal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 275 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Jyoti Basu & Others vs Debi Ghosal & Others on 26 February, 1982

"35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal (vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 1982 SC 983], Mohan Lal Tripathi WP(C)319/2020 Page 25 of 26 v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily [(1992) 4 SCC 80 : AIR 1993 SC 2042] and Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari [(1998) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1998 SC 1222] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 430 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mohan Lal Tripathi vs District Magistrate, Rae Bareilly And ... on 15 May, 1992

"35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal (vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 1982 SC 983], Mohan Lal Tripathi WP(C)319/2020 Page 25 of 26 v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily [(1992) 4 SCC 80 : AIR 1993 SC 2042] and Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari [(1998) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1998 SC 1222] ).
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 79 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Smt. Ram Beti vs District Panchayat Raj Adhikari And ... on 7 May, 1997

"35. The elected official is accountable to its electorate because he is being elected by a large number of voters. His removal has serious repercussions as he is removed from the post and declared disqualified to contest the elections for a further stipulated period, but it also takes away the right of the people of his constituency to be represented by him. Undoubtedly, the right to hold such a post is statutory and no person can claim any absolute or vested right to the post, but he cannot be removed without strictly adhering to the provisions provided by the legislature for his removal (vide Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691 : AIR 1982 SC 983], Mohan Lal Tripathi WP(C)319/2020 Page 25 of 26 v. District Magistrate, Rae Bareily [(1992) 4 SCC 80 : AIR 1993 SC 2042] and Ram Beti v. District Panchayat Raj Adhikari [(1998) 1 SCC 680 : AIR 1998 SC 1222] ).
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs The Collector, District Raigad & Ors on 2 March, 2012

In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad & Ors.[(2012) 4 SCC 407 : (AIR 2012 SC 1339)], this Court held that an elected official cannot be permitted to be removed unceremoniously without following the procedure prescribed by law. Where the statutory provision has very serious repercussions, it implicitly makes it imperative and obligatory on the part of the authority to have strict adherence to the statutory provisions. It was held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 629 - Full Document
1   2 Next