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

1998 Supreme(All) 1182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. Katju and S. L. Saraf, JJ.
MIHIR BANERJI - Appellant
Versus
LALLU LAL KUSHWAHA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 34243 Of 1998
Decided On : 10/26/1998

Advocates Appeared:
Q.H.Siddiqi, Shashi Nandan

Only persons mentioned in Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, can challenge an election, and those not mentioned are impliedly excluded from challenging an election, even by means of a writ petition.

Headnote:

Election Petition - Challenge to Election - The court held that only persons mentioned in Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959, can challenge an election, and those not mentioned are impliedly excluded from challenging an election, even by means of a writ petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the election of Up Nagar Pramukh, Nagar Nigam, Allahabad, under Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner, not being one of the persons mentioned in Section 61, cannot challenge the election.

Issues: Challenge to Election under Section 61 of U. P. Municipal Corporation Adhiniyam, 1959

Ratio Decidendi: Only persons mentioned in Section 61 can challenge an election, and those not mentioned are impliedly excluded from challenging an election, even by means of a writ petition.

Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.

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 mentioned in Section 61 from challenging an election, even by means of a writ petition.

( 5 ) SINCE the petitioner is not one of the persons mentioned in Section 61, in our opinion, he cannot challenge the election. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.


.

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 Back to top