Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.54 seconds)
Smt Asha Devi vs Prescribed Authority / Sub Divisional ... on 8 July, 2024 cites

Kusum Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 21 July, 2023

In similar facts and circumstances, wherein election petition has been allowed and direction has been issued for recounting of ballot papers, co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kusum Kumari (supra) and Ram Kali (supra) has finally upheld that such orders are final order in the eye of law subject to remedy of revision under Section 12-C (6) of the Act, 1947. It is apposite to mention that while entertaining the revision under Section 12-C (6) of the Act, 1947 against the order dated 2.3.2024, the revisional court, vide order dated 22.3.2024, has considered the order under revision as a final order to be revisable under Section 12-C (6) of the Act, 1947 and, accordingly, passed order for admission of the revision and its registration. While confronted with the counsel for the parties querying the pendency of the revision petition, they have admitted that said revision is still seized with the revisional court against the order dated 2.3.2024.
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 1 - S Lavania - Full Document

Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar ... vs Union Of India on 21 March, 2023

7. In view of the point involved in the instant matter, as mentioned above, it would be befitting to define the phrase "Functus Officio". Needless to say that any judge or quasi-judicial authority would be considered as functus officio in the eventuality that he/she has performed his/her duty finally in its official capacity and nothing remains to be decided/considered/revisit on the said subject matter unless there is a legal provision to do so. In the recent judgment of Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association vs. Union of India and others, 2003 SCC OnLine SC 309, Hon. Supreme Court has discussed the phrase "functus officio". The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are quoted herein below:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 91 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors on 1 November, 2000

36. As already indicated above, the Apex Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath (supra) has held that after the Election Tribunal finally pronounces its decision, it becomes 'functus officio' meaning thereby that it would not have any power to pass any order in the election petition after it pronounces its order. In the instant case what the Election Tribunal headed by the Prescribed Authority has done is that it has finally allowed the election petition and has directed for a recounting. Even if the result of recounting of the votes is to be either way, the Election Tribunal having become 'functus officio' after pronouncement of its decision/allowing the petition, it would not be able to pass any further orders. As such keeping in view the settled proposition of law, Article 243-O of the Constitution of India categorically providing that only by means of an election petition the election to the Panchayat can be called in question and the election petition having been finally decided, the Prescribed Authority/Election Tribunal, thus became functus officio and cannot pass any further orders in the matter. As such, the impugned order has to be treated as a final order in all respects and accordingly it is apparent that the Prescribed Authority has passed a patently perverse order and has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him i.e. of finally deciding an election petition either way.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 441 - Full Document

Abrar vs State Of U.P on 16 December, 2010

[26] We are, therefore, with the utmost respect, not able to circumscribe to the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the Abrar's case (supra) for the reasons aforesaid and, therefore, we nave no hesitation in holding that the said decision does not lay down the law correctly on the question of the maintainability of revision under Section 12-C(6) of the Act in respect of an application disposed of by the Prescribed Authority for recount. We further approve the law lald down in the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, [27] We answer the questions referred to by the learned Single Judge as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 24 - H S Bedi - Full Document
1   2 Next