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

1959 Supreme(Cal) 65

SINHA
AMULYA RATAN KARMAKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF BASIRHAT MUNICIPALITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.PRASANTA KUMAR GHOSE, PRAPHULLA KUMAR CHATTERJI, R.K.KHAITAN, SITI KANTHA LAHIRI

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are rate-payers of the Basirhat Municipality. The petitioner No. 2 is a sitting Commissioner and has also stood as a candidate for election as Commissioner of the said municipality at the next general election. The respondent No. 1 are the Commissioners of the Basirhat Municipality. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are members of the committee appointed under Section 21, of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 called the 'registering authority. ' Section 21 of the said Act lays down that a committee consisting of the chairman and two Commissioners to be appointed by the Commissioners at a meeting for this purpose, shall prepare and publish at the time and in the manner prescribed, an Electoral Roll showing the names of persons qualified to vote. Every person whose name appears in the final Electoral Roll published under this section, so long as such Roll remains in force, is entitled to vote at an election and no person whose name does not appear in such Roll can vote at an election. It is provided that when a Municipality has been divided into wards the Electoral Roll shall be divided into separate lists for each ward. The Electoral Roll as published remains












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