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

1953 Supreme(Mad) 111

VENKATARAMA AYYAR
Golla Narasfrnhulu – Appellant
Versus
Kodi Narasimham – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Rama Reddy and V. Venkataramana Reddy for the Petitioner.
Mohan Kumaramangalam for the 1st respondent.

Order.-

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the decision of the Election Commissioner in O.P.No.32 of 1952. The facts are not in dispute. On 16th September, 1952, elections were held for the Municipal Council, Nandyal. The petitioner and the first respondent herein and two other candidates contested the seat for Ward No.12. The petitioner got 280 votes, the first respondent 240 votes and the other two candidates far less and accordingly, the petitioner was duly declared elected. Thereupon, the first respondent, filed O.P.No.32 of 1952 before the Subordinate Judge of Kurnool who is the Election Commissioner under the Act for setting aside the election on various grounds. We are concerned in this petition with only one of them, that the Polling-officer entered on the ballot-papers the names of the electors and their serial number in the electoral list. Rule 27-A(1)(a) of the Election Rules is as follows:

“A ballot-paper shall be rejected if it bears any mark by which the elector can be identified.”

The contention of the first respondent, before the Election Commissioner was that in marking the ballot-papers with the names and the serial number of the el















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