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

1998 Supreme(MP) 113

D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Uday Singh – Appellant
Versus
Himmat Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
Ajay Gupta for petitioner; Pradeep Bhargava for respondent No.1

ORDER

1. The order passed in this petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India shall also decide the connected petition being W.P. No. 5275 of 1996 Himmat Singh v. Uday Singh and others) against the same order dated 15.11.1996 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal as Specified Officer in the election petition filed under Sec. 122 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993.

2. The Specified Officer has passed a very peculiar order whereby both the contesting parties to the petition feel aggrieved. The Specified Officer had tried the election petition in such a slip-shod and illegal manner that the proceedings dragged on for number of days and earlier two writ petitions came to be filed in the course of election trial. The facts narrated hereunder would justify that it is high time that the legislature should seriously consider appointing any judicial officer or any officer of rank higher than Sub-Divisional Officer to be the Specified Officer for trying election petitions under the Act. A minimum knowledge of election law is necessary for trying an election petition. The impugned order by the Specified Officer in this case shows complete lack of the sam



























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