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

1963 Supreme(Pat) 99

H.MAHAPATRA, TARKESHWAR NATH
Bishwanath Prasad – Appellant
Versus
Ramji Prasad Sinha – Respondent


Judgment

Tarkeshwar Nath, J.

1. This application by seventeen persons - under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for a declaration that the election of the Municipal Commissioners of the Sitamarhi Municipality held on 12-6-1960 was void. The facts leading to this application are these. On 20-2-1959 the District Magistrate of Muzaffarpur called upon all the words of the Sitaniarhi Municipality to elect Commissioners on or before 15-7-1959. No step was taken for holding the election before that date and hence it was adjourned to 31-5-1960 by another notification dated 4-2-1960 issued by the same officer. The District Magistrate appointed the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Sitamarhi (respondent 27) as a returning officer by notification dated 8-3-1960 and the latter fixed 27-4-1960 as the last date for filing of the nomination paper, 28-4-1960 for scrutiny, 1-5-1960 for withdrawal and 29-5-1960 for the poll relating to the election of the Commissioners of the Sitamarhi Municipality. The date for polling was, however, postponed to 12-6-1960 and this alteration, it is alleged, was illegal for want of a proper notification. The result of the polling on 12-6-1960 was that r
















































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