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

2012 Supreme(All) 1132

SUDHIR AGARWAL
BHAJNO DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Satish Mandhyan for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.4.2012 passed by District Magistrate, Bijnor removing petitioner from post of Gram Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Teep under Section 95 (1) (g) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1947”) on the ground that seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste woman and petitioner contested the election claiming herself to be a Scheduled Caste candidate (caste Bajgi) though actually she does not belong to that caste and even the caste certificate dated 29.9.2010 alleged to have been issued by Tahasildar was not actually issued by him as has been confirmed by Tahasildar by letter No. 533@Vadd@tkfr@lR;kiu@2012 dated 6.1.2012. Therefore the very election of petitioner to the post of Gram Pradhan was void ab-initio.

2. Sri Madhyan learned counsel for petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and on the basis of enquiry conducted against petitioner behind her back and hence is liable to be set aside. He submitted that neither the report submitted by Tahasilar was ever apprised to petitioner nor petitioner was confronted wi























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