Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANGE RAM PUNIA versus RAJ SINGH (SARPANCH AND ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mange Ram Punia v. Raj Singh (Sarpanch and Ors. - CR-853-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 310 (24 January 2006)

CR No. 853 if 2006 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Revision No.853 of 2006

Date of Decision: 14.02.2006

Mange Ram Punia ..Petitioner.

Vs.

Raj Singh (Sarpanch and ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

Present: Mr Amit Singla, Advocate forcible Mr.K.K.Goel, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

ORDER

The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned Trial Court on 15.12.2005 whereby the application seeking recount of the votes was declined.

It is the case of the petitioner that elected candidate has been declared elected by a margin of 13 votes only and many bogus votes have been polled and that there are many voters who have caste votes at 2 places. However, such application was filed by the petitioner before the petitioner led any evidence in support of the election petition on the basis of which the petitioner has filed the election petition.

CR No. 853 if 2006 (2)

The Court declined the application for recount of the votes on the ground that vague pleas have been taken but no documentary or other evidence has been prima facie brought on record in support of such pleas.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Radha Kishan Vs.Election Tribunal- cum-Sub Judge, Hissar 1999 (3) PLR 1 to contend that upon being prima facie satisfied it is open to the Court of competent jurisdiction to order scrutiny and computation of votes recorded in favour of each candidate.

However, the said judgment is of no help to the petitioner in as much as the Court has to be satisfied that the recount is necessary. In the absence of any evidence, the stage is yet not ripe for the petitioner to contend that the case is made out for recount at this stage.

In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court with may warrant interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta)

14.02.2006 Judge

rp


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.