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

2004 Supreme(SC) 1151

P. P. NAOLEKAR, R. C. LAHOTI, G. P. MATHUR
JAYANTA SAMAL – Appellant
Versus
KULAMANI BEHERA – Respondent


ORDER

1. LEAVE GRANTED.

2. ELECTIONS TO THE OFFICE OF SARPANCH OF KENDUAPADA PANCHAYAT IN THE STATE OF ORISSA WERE HELD ON 23-2-2002 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORISSA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ACT. THE RESULT WAS DECLARED ON 28-2-2002. THE APPELLANT SECURED 1578 VOTES WHILE RESPONDENT 1 SECURED 1644 VOTES. ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT 1 WAS DECLARED ELECTED.

3. THE APPELLANT FILED AN ELECTION PETITION LAYING CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT AND SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE ELECTION OF THE RESPONDENT BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND THE APPELLANT BE DECLARED TO HAVE BEEN ELECTED. ONE OF THE PRAYERS MADE IN THE ELECTION PETITION WAS SEEKING RECOUNT OF THE VOTES CAST AT THE ELECTION. IT WAS ALLEGED IN THE ELECTION PETITION, INTER ALIA:

"8. THAT AT THE TIME OF COUNTING THE SUPPORTERS OF OP 1 AT THE INSTANCE OF OP 1 OVERPOWERED POLLING STAFF INCLUDING PRESIDING OFFICER IN ALL THE BOOTHS, DOMINATED ENTIRE SCENARIO OF COUNTING AND MOBILISED THE PRESIDING AND POLLING OFFICERS TO PLAY INTO THEIR HANDS, WHIMS AND CAPRICES. ABOUT TWO HUNDRED VOTES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN REJECTED WERE COUNTED IN FAVOUR OF OP 1 AND ABOUT TWO HUNDRED VOTES WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER W













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