UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 534 (M/S) of 2009 Jagdev Singh v. (1) Braham Pal
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 s. 20
Judgment
Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sri Dharam Pal R/o Simili Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (3) Ajay Verma S/o Sri Bhgawat Prasad R/o Azad Nagar, Laksar, Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (4) Jitendra Verma S/o Sri Shriram Verma R/o Shivpur, Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (5) Prem Singh Pundir S/o Sri Rampal R/o Govardhanpur Road, Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (6) Anil Kumar S/o Sri Mahavir R/o Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (7) Surendra S/o Sri Amarnath R/o Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (8) Ved Prakash alias Sanjay S/o Sri Ashok R/o Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (9) Jagdish Prasad S/o Sri Baru Singh R/o Laksar Pargana Manglore, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).. O. Ps/Proforma Respondents.
Sri Siddhartha Sah, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, present for the respondents. Hon(cid:146)ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2) This petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 26th March 2009, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, in Election Petition No. 4 of 2008, whereby said authority has decided Issue No. 9 against the petitioner (who is Opposite Party No. 1 in the election petition). (3) The impugned order (copy of which is annexure 4 to the petition) shows that on the plea of the present petitioner, raised in the election petition, Issue No. 9 was framed as under:- Whether the election petition is bad for joinder State Election Commission, State of Uttarakhand, and Election Officer? (4) After hearing the parties, learned District Judge, H a r i d w a r , b e f o r e w h o m t h e e l e c t i o n p e t i t i o n i s pending, has observed in his order that under Sub- Section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the person whose election is questioned and where petitioner claims that any other candidate should be declared elected in the room of such person, every unsuccessful candidate (who is not petitioner in the election petition) shall be made a respondent to the petition.
Reading of Section 20 of said Act, in which provisions are made relating form and presentation of election petition show that it is nowhere required that State Election Commission or State of Uttarakhand or Election Officer shall be made a party in the election petition. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any provision of law under which the aforesaid parties are necessarily required to be impleaded in the election petition. (6) Therefore, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the court below in deciding Issue No. 9, which requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily. (Stay Application No. 2705 of 2009 also stands dismissed).
10.04.2009 NS (Prafulla C. Pant., J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 — s. 20.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 26 Mar 2009. The bench was PRAFULLA C PANT.
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.