Back
ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Tej Kunwar @ Gudiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's request for election cancellation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. writ petition non-maintainability under statutory provisions. (Para 3) |
| 3. procedural requirements for challenging elections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.
1. Heard Ms Sanju Lata, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.
2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer;
3. Learned Standing Counsel at the very outset submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 12 (C) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 as well as Article 243-O of Constitution of India.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
5. Before proceeding further a conspicuous glance of Section 12 (C) is necessary to appreciate the controversy in hand. The relevant provisions are extracted
Point of Law : In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute, after election process has come to an end, the State Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to ....
Courts cannot entertain challenges to the formation of wards and reservation of seats for village Panchayats due to the provisions of Article 243-O and the decision in Jadhav Shankar Dyandeo vs. Coll....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following the statutory provisions and the elaborate challenge procedure provided under the UP Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and exerc....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
