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

1956 Supreme(All) 385

V. D. BHARGAVA
Mohar Singh – Appellant
Versus
President, Notified Area Committee – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
N. Banerji and R.P. Deengur, For the Appellant / B.K. Dhaon and B.N. Roy, For the Respondent

JUDGMENT

V.D. Bhargava, J. - These conneted applications (sic) on behalf of Mohar Singh and Ram Dayal Shukla Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both the applicants were elected as members of the Notified Area Committee, Colonelganj, district Gonda, in October, 1953 and they had been acting as such upto March, 1956. t is alleged that there were two parties in the Notified Area and of the 11 members 6 belonged to the party of the applicants and 5 to the other. The parties of the Petitioners were in majority and the President belonged to the other party. On account of this tie, the President wanted somehow or the other to reduce the majority to a minority.

2. As against Mohar Singh, a false complaint was filed sometime in August, 1955 by the Secretary and same other officials of the Notified Area Committee that he had abused the Secretary in public for refusing to act in a manner suggested by one Ranjit Singh in connection with the application of one Jaimal Singh for permission to build a house. The Petitioner Mohar Singh, was not aware of this complaint at all. On 2-11-1955 a letter was issued to him by the District Magistrate requiring him to show cause within 15 days why

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