Tayub Hussain v. The State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Roopak Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is assailing the election of Sarpanch on the ground that there was violence resorted to by the opposite party. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the election petition is not the appropriate remedy as Section 176 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 does not extend to his case. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant petition and it deserves to be dismissed. The provisions of Section 176 of the Act are amply wide in scope and ambit to include the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner, if so advised, may file an election petition with the grievance as has been raised therein. Dismissed
1.9.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 — s. 176.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 01 Sep 2010. The bench was MAHESH GROVER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.