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

1962 Supreme(All) 35

A.P.SRIVASTAVA
BHOLANATH SRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
S.N.MISRA

A. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 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




















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