Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)Shri Krishan vs The Kurukshetra University, ... on 17 November, 1975
4. The aforesaid order was passed after full consideration
of the points raised by the petitioner in that case which have been
reiterated in the instant writ petition again claiming that respondent
no.7 had not attained the age of 21 years in the year 2006 when the
election was held for Katihar Zila Parishad.
Sushil Kumar vs Rakesh Kumar on 16 October, 2003
7. The Apex Court in case of Sushil Kumar V. Rakesh
-7-
Kumar, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 230, as well as in case
of Brij Mohan Singh V. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, reported in AIR
1965 SC 282, observed that in actual life it often happens that
persons give false age of the child at the time of admission in a
school so that child may have an advantage at the time of seeking
public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often
prescribed and hence entry of the date of birth made in the school
register in terms of Section 35 of the Act should be considered from
that perspective.
Brij Mohan Singh vs Priya Brat Narain Sinha And Ors on 5 February, 1964
7. The Apex Court in case of Sushil Kumar V. Rakesh
-7-
Kumar, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 230, as well as in case
of Brij Mohan Singh V. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, reported in AIR
1965 SC 282, observed that in actual life it often happens that
persons give false age of the child at the time of admission in a
school so that child may have an advantage at the time of seeking
public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often
prescribed and hence entry of the date of birth made in the school
register in terms of Section 35 of the Act should be considered from
that perspective.
Birad Mal Singhvi vs Anand Purohit on 2 August, 1988
8. Furthermore, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of Birad
Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, reported in 1988 Supp SCC 604,
held that an entry relating to date of birth made in the school register
is relevant and admissible under Section 35 of the Act, but the entry
regarding to the age of a person in a school register is of not much
evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of
material on which the date of birth was recorded.
Chittaranjan Das vs Durgapore Project Ltd. And Ors. on 21 December, 1994
The said principle
has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of Chittaranjan Das
Vs. Durapore Project Limited and others, reported in 1999 CWN
897 and also in case of Coal India Limited v. Arun Kumar Sinha
and others, reported in 1999 (1) SLR 151.
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
-9-
a decision of the Apex Court in case of Dalip Singh Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 114, in which it
was held that the very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in
disclosure of true, complete and correct facts and if the material
facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the
very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible. In
the instant case, this court does not find any suppression or
distortion of facts by respondent no.7, as has been discussed above
on the basis of materials on record, whereas on the other hand, it is
the petitioner who has not candidly stated and has suppressed and
has distorted the relevant facts of this case because she neither
annexed order dated 17.03.2010 passed in CWJC No.12775 of 2009
nor stated any detail about the nature of the said order passed by this
court, which was essential for proper adjudication of this case. It
was respondent no.7 who brought the said order of this court on
record vide Annexure-1 of her I.A.No.4759 of 2010.
The Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006
Coal India Limited vs Arun Kumar Sinha & Ors. on 10 September, 1998
The said principle
has been reiterated by the Apex Court in case of Chittaranjan Das
Vs. Durapore Project Limited and others, reported in 1999 CWN
897 and also in case of Coal India Limited v. Arun Kumar Sinha
and others, reported in 1999 (1) SLR 151.
Punam Kumari vs State Election Commission And Ors. on 5 September, 2007
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
decision of the Supreme Court in case of K.Venkatachalam Versus
A. Swamickan and another, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 525, in which
it has been held that if an M.L.A is elected by impersonation, the
High Court is not powerless to grant the relief in such matters.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of
a single bench of this court in case of Punam Kumari Vs. State
Election Commission, Bihar, & ors, reported in 2007(4)
P.L.J.R.787, holding that the eligibility of a candidate to contest the
election can be challenged in writ jurisdiction after the election and
a writ in the nature of quo-warranto can be filed at any time and by
any person.
1