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

1998 Supreme(All) 1182

M.KATJU, S.L.SARAF
MIHIR BANERJI – Appellant
Versus
LALLU LAL KUSHWAHA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Q.H.Siddiqi, Shashi Nandan

M. KATJU AND S. L. SARAF, JJ.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Q. H. Siddiqui learned counsel appeared for respondent No. 4.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is challenging the election of Up Nagar Pramukh. Nagar Nigam. Allahabad. Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, provides for an election petition by an unsuccessful candidate or by a candidate whose nomination paper has been rejected or by a member of the Corporation.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that since he does not belong to any one of the categories mentioned in Section 61, he cannot file an election petition. That may be correct, but, in our opinion, an election can only be challenged by the persons mentioned in, and in the manner provided in Section 61. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it will logically follow that even the election of the President of India or a Member of parliament or a Member of the Legislative Assembly may be challenged by filing a writ petition merely because the petitioner could not challenge the election by way of election petition.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, Section 61 impliedly excludes such persons who are not me




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