Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.28 seconds)Section 7 in The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Article 243ZA in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 7A in The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
J&K National Panthers Party vs The Union Of India & Ors on 9 November, 2010
In Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party v. Union of
India and others, (2011)1 SCC 228, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted from
R.C. Poudyal's case (supra), wherein the claim of the claim of the petitioner
was to carry out delimitation as a result of the census operation being carried
out. The court held that the concept of one person one vote to be tolerant of
imbalances and departures from a very strict application and enforcement.
The Court concluded to the following effect:-
Lakhbir Singh Sehmee vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 30 April, 2002
Lakhbir Singh Sehmee, one of the writ petitioner had earlier
invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court raising similar argument, as in the
present case, by filing CWP Nos10151 & 10152 of 2002 . This Court
directed that fresh voters list and delimitation of wards be completed within
four months. Since the process was not completed, the petitioner filed a
miscellaneous application and on such application, this Court passed a
detailed order, which is reported as Lakhbir Singh Sehmee v. State of Punjab
and others, 2002(3) PLR 142. The Court considered the fact that delimitation
has been done on the basis of 1991 census and the same cannot be done
afresh in view of the time constraint. It also considered that provisional
figures of census cannot be taken into consideration. The Court also held
that in view of bar of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, the petition is not
maintainable. The Court considered, inter alia, the following two questions:
Prithvi Raj vs State Election Commission And Ors. on 25 July, 2007
In view of the judgments referred to above, the present writ
petitions have not merit. The same are accordingly dismissed.