Smt. Pramila Sinha v. Chhattisgam State Election Commlssion
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused orders dated 25.05.2006 (Annexure P-3), 28.08.2006 (Annexure P-2), 21.02.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.1 and having an opportunity of going through the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by this Court in W.P. No.4456 of 2006, is evident respondent No.1 ;n its order dated
21.02.2007 has considered ail the points of the petitioner raised !n his review application. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the required account of expenses under Section 32-B of the Aot was not lodged within the prescribed period of 30 days, but the same was !odged after 5 months on 22.06.2005. There is no other reason which can mitigate the cireumstances restraining the petitioner in lodging the eiection expenses within the prescribed time. The order passed by respondent No.1 is unexoeptional. There is no infirmity, il'egality or irregularity in the impugned order. Thus, no writ/'direction can be issued in exeroising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. /. This petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. En<M Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Municipalities Act, 1961; Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Chhattisgarh High Court, on 25 May 2006.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.