M.B.SHAH, B.N.AGRAWAL
MAHENDRA PAL – Appellant
Versus
RAM DASS MALANGER – Respondent
2. The election petition was filed by the appellant for setting aside the election of respondent No.l. It is submitted that the appellant contested the election as a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress while respondent No.l contested the election as candidate sponsored by the Bhartiya Janta party. Appellant secured 11.657 votes and respondent No. 1 secured 11.660 votes. Therefore, respondent No. 1 I was declared elected by a margin of three votes only. It was alleged that I the said election result was vitiated because of improper reception of invalid votes in favour of respondent No.l and improper rejection of valid votes in favour of appellant. It was also contended that many irregularities were committed during the course of counting which had materially affected the result of election insofar as the returned candidate is concerned. It was pointed out that total number of bal
1. Mahendra Pal v. Ram Dass Malanger & Ors. 2000 (I) SCC 261 2000 SC 16:1999 AIR SCW 4130).
2. R. Narayananv. S. Semmalai & Ors.. 1980 (2) SCC 537 AIR 1980 SC 206.
3. D.P. Sharma v. Commissioner and Returning Officer & Ors. 1984 (Supp) SCC 157 AIR 1984 SC 654
4. P.K.K. Shamsudeen v. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohideen &. Ors. AIR 1989 SC 640.
6. Vadivelu v. Sundaram & Ors.. AIR 200 SC 3230:2000 AIR SCW 3664 : 2000 (8) SCC 355.
7. V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis & Anr. AIR 2001 SC 837:(2O01 AIR SCW 499): 2001 (3) SCC 81.
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.