Back
2004(1) Supreme 804
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., S.H. Kapadia, J.
Amarjit Singh -Petitioner
versus
Charanjit Singh and Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24367 of 2003
Decided on 8-1-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : Davinder Kaushal, Advocate for A.P Mohanty, Advocate.
Held : In common law voting at all meetings is by a show of hands. Voting by show of hands means counting the persons present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up (raising) their hands. Any person having legal right to be present at the meeting may, at the conclusion of the voting, demand a poll and the Chairperson is the proper person to grant or refuse a poll which is in the nature of an appeal by one of the parties dissatisfied with the decision of the Chairperson upon the show of hands. In modern parliamentary usage a motion is carried by acclamation or by show of hands. The Chairman or the Presiding Officer asks those present to indicate their vote or choice by holding up their hands. Once the Presiding Officer records the votes and, after counting the votes, declares the result, it is conclusive and it can be challenged only by a demand for poll. If the demand is not made, the Chairman s declaration will stand (see: Shackleton On The Law And Practice Of Meetings - 8th Edition, pages 60-62). Once a motion has been voted upon, it becomes a resolution of the meeting. The result of a vote once announced is final (see: The Rules of Debate in The Parliament of France by D.W.S. Lidderdale, page 145). In the present case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court that it was not permissible for the Presiding Officer to change the vote of Sher Singh once it has been recorded in favour of the original petitioner under Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President Election Rules, 1994. (Para 2)
ORDER
It is not disputed that the polling had taken place by show of hands. It is also not disputed that the vote of Sher Singh, who cast his vote by show of hand for the respondent, was recorded and recorded votes were counted. Under such circumstances, the Presiding Officer could not have directed for re-poll in the garb of recounting of votes. We are of the view that the High Court has taken a correct decision.
2. Before concluding, we may usefully refer to Blackwell s Law of Meetings - 9th Edition, page 60. In common law voting at all meetings is by a show of hands. Voting by show of hands means counting the persons present who are entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up (raising) their hands. Any person having legal right to be present at the meeting may, at the conclusion of the voting, demand a poll and the Chairperson is the proper person to grant or refuse a poll which is in the nature of an appeal by one of the parties dissatisfied with the decision of the Chairperson upon the show of hands. In modern parliamentary usage a motion is carried by acclamation or by show of hands. The Chairman or the Presiding Officer asks those present to indicate their vote or choice by holding up their hands. Once the Presiding Officer records the votes and, after counting the votes, declares the result, it is conclusive and it can be challenged only by a demand for poll. If the demand is not made, the Chairman s declaration will stand (see: Shackleton On The Law And Practice Of Meetings - 8th Edition, pages 60-62). Once a motion has been voted upon, it becomes a resolution of the meeting. The result of a vote once announced is final (see: The Rules of Debate in The Parliament of France by D.W.S. Lidderdale, page 145). In the present case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court that it was not permissible for the Presiding Officer to change the vote of Sher Singh once it has been recorded in favour of the original petitioner under Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President Election Rules, 1994.
For foregoing reasons special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
**************
00023
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
