THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN v. Francis (2001(1)KLT 740(SC) regarding the secrecy of the ballot. I do not
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
P1, P2 and P3 ordersin appeal, if any, against the final decision in the election case, thiswrit petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Operative part
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J===========================W.P.(C). NO. 30873 Of 2006============================Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2006J U D G M E N TThe election petitioner challenges refusal of the trial court tore open the evidence. The impugned order has been passed relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Achuthanandan v. Francis (2001(1)KLT 740(SC) regarding the secrecy of the ballot. I do not venture to go into the correctness of Ext.P2 order or the order that followed, since the said orders can be effectively challenged in an appeal against the final decision of the Election Court, if the writ petitioner would then stand agreed by the final disposal of the election case. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undersuch circumstances, without expressing anything on merits, leaving open the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P1, P2 and P3 orders in appeal, if any, against the final decision in the election case, this writ petition is dismissed.THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.SJ
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: P1, P2 and P3 ordersin appeal, if any, against the final decision in the election case, thiswrit petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Nov 2006. The bench was THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN.
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.