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

2025 Supreme(Pat) 31

NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Gajanand Shahi – Appellant
Versus
Sudarshan Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam.
For the Respondent: M/s Ansul, Sr Adv., Madhav Raj.

Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Madhav Raj for the sole respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this election petition for setting aside the election of the sole respondent, who has been declared elected as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from 170, Barbigha Assembly Constituency. The election was held on 28.10.2020 and the result was declared on 10.11.2020. The ground for setting aside the election, as claimed by the petitioner, is improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the sole respondent by the Returning Officer.

3. As per the averments in the petition, altogether 11 contestants were there in the electoral fray/arena, including the petitioner and the sole respondent. On the date of scrutiny i.e. 09.10.2020, the nomination paper of Shri Ajay Kumar, an independent candidate, was found incomplete and it was rejected by the Returning Officer, but at the same time, the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination paper of the sole respondent which too was incomplete. The correct and material information were not given in

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