Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
JASPAL SINGH ARORA, APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M.P., OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 4980-81 of 1997 (Arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 11007-11008 of 1997),
decided on July 21, 1997.
ORDER
1. The election of the petitioner Jaspal Singh Arora as President of the Municipal Council, Sehore was challenged by a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mahesh Chourasia who was a defeated candidate at the election. That writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the statutory remedy of challenging the election by an election petition was available under the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") and, therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained. Thereafter, another writ petition was filed by Laxmi Narayan Rather (Respondent 4 herein) to the same effect. The High Court by the impugned order dated 13-5-1997 has allowed that writ petition and set aside the election of the petitioner.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals must be allowed on a short ground. In view of the mode of challenging the election by an election petition being prescribed by the M.P. Municipalities Act, it is clear that the election could not be called in question except by an election petition as provided under that Act. The bar to interference by courts in electoral matters contained in Article 243-ZG of the Constitution was apparently overlooked by the High Court in allowing the writ petition. Apart from the bar under Article 243-ZG, on settled principles interference under Article 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of setting aside election to a municipality was not called for because of the statutory provision for election petition and also the fact that an earlier writ petition for the same purpose by a defeated candidate had been dismissed by the High Court.
4. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 13-5-1997 passed by the High Court is set aside resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Respondent 4 in the High Court. In the circumstances of the case, we also direct Respondent 4 to pay to the appellant Rs. 5000 as costs.
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
