D.M.DHARMADHIKARI
Uday Singh – Appellant
Versus
Himmat Singh – Respondent
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
1. P.K.K Shamsudeen v. K.A.M Mappillai Mohindeen and ors. = [AIR 1989 SC 640]
3. Babulal and an-or v. State of MP. and others = (1985 JLJ 644
5. F.A. Sapa v. Singora = (AIR 1991 SC 1557)
7. Kailash Narayan v. Namdar and others = (1996 JLJ 391)
8. Shashi Bhushan v. Balraj Madhok = (AIR 1972 SC 1251)
9. P.K.K Shamsudeen v. K.A.M Mappillai Mohideen and others = (AIR 1989 SC 640)
10. Ram Rati v. Saroj Devi and others = [(1997) 6 SCC 66]
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.