Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.87 seconds)
Smt. Ruma Raj vs The State Election Commission Bihar & O on 19 May, 2017 cites

Ramachandra Ganpat Shinde And Another vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 17 August, 1993

In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandra G. Shinde v. State of Maharashtra reported as (1993) 4 SCC 216, the relevant being at paragraph no. 60 as well as decisions of the High Court in the case of Balendu Bharti vs. State of Bihar reported as 2012(3) PLJR 460, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 19, 20 and 21; in the case of Prafful Chandra Sudhanshu vs. State Election Commission (Municipality) reported as 2013(2) PLJR 114 as also in the case of Jai Narain Pandit vs. State Election Commission reported as 2014(1) PLJR 466, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 12 to 15.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 71 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Bibha Devi vs The State Election Commission ( ... on 18 October, 2016

7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition submitting that once notification has been issued with regard to election and a candidate has been declared elected, the only remedy left is to assail such declaration before the prescribed authority. It was submitted that the respondent no. 6, having been declared elected and certificate issued in her favour, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India gets denuded. For such proposition, he relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Bibha Devi vs. State Election Commission (Panchayat) reported as 2017(1) PLJR 225, the relevant being at paragraphs no. 18, 21, 22, 29, 30, 31, 32, 79, 80 and 81. However, coming to the merits of the case, he submitted that the Returning Officer was required to consider the objection of the respondent no. 6 and he not having done so, the respondent no. 6 had approached the State Election Commission and during enquiry it was revealed that the objection raised by the respondent no. 6 was valid and accordingly her nomination papers have been rejected which is sound, both in law as well as on facts. Learned counsel submitted that the order of the State Election Commission rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner was based upon an enquiry conducted by the District Officers followed by opportunity of hearing to the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.7203 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017 7/13 and thus, the basic requirements of law have also been complied with. It was submitted that in the declaration relating to cash in hand shown by the petitioner was Rs. 5000/- whereas in the nomination paper filed by her husband for Ward No. 29, the amount shown as cash in hand was Rs. 10,00,000/- which amounts to suppression of fact and thus, rightly the State Election Commission has interfered. It was further submitted that the fact about the husband of the petitioner having a Hindustan Petroleum Gas Agency not being declared is another suppression of fact. He submitted that the said requirement is statutory in terms of Section 445 of the Act which requires the assets to be declared of the candidate, and of his/her spouse and that of dependants. It was thus, submitted that the requirement of law is declaration of the assets of not only the petitioner alone but also of the husband, as in the present case, which in two separate forms, one by the petitioner and another by the husband reveal that incorrect facts have been stated.
Patna High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 9 - C S Singh - Full Document

Prafful Chandra Sudhanshu vs The State Election Commission on 1 March, 2013

Further, this Court was a member of the Bench in the case of Prafful Chandra Sudhanshu (supra), where it has been held that Rule 47 makes the decision of the Returning Officer final and once the respondent no. 5 had accepted the nomination papers of the petitioner and also allotted Patna High Court CWJC No.7203 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017 9/13 symbol, the matter stood concluded till the election attained finality by declaration of result in accordance with law to be assailed before the prescribed authority under the Act. The contentions of learned counsel for the State Election Commission that the objection had not been considered has to be considered in two parts. On facts, only one objection was raised before the Returning Officer i.e., the petitioner having filled Rs. 5,000/- in the column of her assets relating to cash in hand which was alleged to be contrary to such declaration filled by her husband in his nomination paper for Ward No. 29 which declared the cash in hand to be Rs. 10,00,000/-. Dealing with this issue, the Court would only observe that such declaration filled in the nomination paper is not material to be looked into at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper moreso, for the reason it relates to cash in hand which fact is totally the subjective declaration of the person concerned. Thus, either Rs. 5,000/- could be correct or Rs. 10,00,000/- could be correct but both being known only to the petitioner or to the other declarant, the Returning Officer could not have gone into and decided which was correct and to hold that the petitioner's was incorrect is not proper at such stage. The law provides a forum and after the election, in a duly constituted election suit, such issue can be dealt with which would require leading of evidence. Further, besides this objection, there was no other Patna High Court CWJC No.7203 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017 10/13 objection before the Returning Officer and rightly he was not required to pass any formal order rejecting such objection. The issue on which the State Election Commission seems to have become active is more with regard to the non declaration of the fact that the husband of the petitioner had a Hindustan Petroleum Gas Agency in his favour. This fact was never raised before the Returning Officer and thus, there was no occasion for him to be aware of any suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner. Again, at the cost of repetition, even that issue can adequately be looked into post election before the prescribed authority in a duly constituted election suit. The Court, at this juncture, would clarify one basic issue i.e., if there would have been suppression of fact of a substantive nature and some basic inherent and glaring disqualification under the law, for example, non declaration of any criminal antecedent which has a direct bearing on the main electorate, with regard to forming an opinion of the prospective candidate by the electorate in choosing their representative, this Court would have refrained to interfere in the matter or exercise its extraordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction which is also discretionary. Coming to the second issue relating to law, as has been discussed earlier and has been the consistent view of the Courts, once the Returning Officer takes a decision either to accept or reject, neither he nor the State Election Commission has the Patna High Court CWJC No.7203 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017 11/13 power to interfere in the same. In this case, the State Election Commission has directly rejected the nomination paper of the petitioner which itself does not appear to be permissible as there is no such provision either under the Act or the Rules which confers the power on the State Election Commission to deliberate upon and directly accept or reject the nomination paper of any candidate. The objection of learned counsel for the respondent no. 6, relating to maintainability is noticed only for the sake of rejecting the same. In the present case, the Court is not impeding or coming in the way of election, rather the action of the State Election Commission has come in the way of holding of a free and fair election for the reason that had the nomination paper of the petitioner been accepted, it would have resulted in proceeding of the election in accordance with law as per the schedule fixed and thus, the law would have taken its course once the process was completed in accordance with law, and the aggrieved party having an opportunity to move before the prescribed authority under the Act. Further, the declaration of the result based upon rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner by the State Election Commission being clearly beyond jurisdiction, no benefit or right can flow from such order. Once admittedly the respondent no. 6 has been declared elected based on an order of the State Election Commission which this Court has held to be without jurisdiction, the Patna High Court CWJC No.7203 of 2017 dt.19-05-2017 12/13 subsequent declaration and issuance of certificate in her favour also becomes non est as they are consequential and a direct result of the original order impugned which the Court has found to be unsustainable.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - R M Doshit - Full Document

Jai Narain Pandit & Anr vs The State Election Commission on 18 June, 2013

9. Having considered the rival contentions, the Court is unable to uphold the decision of the State Election Commission. The law clearly stipulates that once an election process has started, the same shall not be interfered with except in the manner prescribed and before the authority as may be prescribed by the Legislature of the State. In the present case, the State Legislature has enacted the Act in which a forum has been prescribed for such challenge post election. Further, the bar to interference relates to authorities and is not restricted to that by the Courts and is equally applicable to the State Election Commission as has been held in the decisions of Balendu Bharti (supra) and Jai Narain Pandit (supra).
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - R K Datta - Full Document
1