A.P.SRIVASTAVA
BHOLANATH SRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS petition was heard on 12-2-62 and was dismissed. Detailed reasons for the decision were to be given later. I now proceed to give the reasons.
( 2 ) THE petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was a candidate for election to the Parliament from the constituency known as No. 57 Allahabad parliamentary Constituency. He filed his nomination paper for the constituency before the returning Officer but on an objection being raised the Returning Officer by an order dated 22-1-62 rejected the petitioners nomination as invalid on the ground that the petitioner had not made the necessary deposit as required by Section 34 (1) (a) of the Representation of the People act 1951. The notification calling upon all Parliamentary constituencies, including the constituency in question, to elect members was issued under Section 14 (2) of Representation of the People Act 1951 and was published; in the Government Gazette dated 13-1-62. The consequential notification appointing the various dates in connection with the election was issued by the Election Commission and published in the Gazette of India dated 13-1-62.
( 3 ) BY the present
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.