SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1922

A.S.ANAND, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Saraswati Devi – Appellant
Versus
Shanti Devi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted.

2. By consent of learned advocates of parties the appeal was finally heard and is being disposed of by this judgment. The contesting parties are appellant on the one hand and Respondent No. 1 on the other. Both belong to Scheduled Castes. Their claim is centered round the chair of President of the Municipal Committee, Loharu in Haryana State. The grievance of the appellant against the order of the High Court in favour of respondent No. 1 can be better appreciated after looking at the relevant introductory facts.

3. The appellant as well as respondent No. 1 are Scheduled Castes women. Elections were held to Loharu Municipal Committee. For the purpose of election of members of the Committee, Loharu Municipal area is divided into 11 wards. Out of these 11 wards three wards, namely, ward Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were reserved for members belonging to Scheduled Castes. Out of these three wards, ward No. 5 was reserved for the Scheduled Castes women and ward No. 2 was reserved for backward classes. Apart from the aforesaid reservations, ward nos. 8, 10 and 11 were reserved for General women. Elections to Loharu Municipal Committee were held on 28th December


















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top