Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DIMPLE RANI versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dimple Rani v. The State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-16064-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7887 (26 September 2006)

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.

C.W.P.No. 16064 of 2006

Decided on: Oct 10,2006

Dimple Rani --Petitioner

vs.

The State of Haryana and others --Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh

Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal

Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda,Advocate, for the petitioner.

Jasbir Singh,J:(Oral)

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash letter dated June 24,2005 (Annexure P5), vide which notice was issued to elect President and Vice President of Municipal Council, Karnal on June 29,2005. Further, prayer is to quash election of President and Vice President, who were elected vide resolution Annexure P-6 on the above said date.

It is case of the petitioner that election in Ward from which petitioner was contesting, was also to be conducted along-with others on April 16,2005. However, State Election Commission vide order dated April 15,2004, cancelled election programme in respect of seven Wards of Municipal Council, Karnal. Thereafter, election was conducted and as many as, 24 councillors were elected on April 16,2005. Thereafter, under orders of this Court, election was conducted in the above-mentioned five Wards and petitioner was elected on October 04,2006. Counsel states that as the election to the post of President and Vice President was conducted in the absence of at least 5 members of the Council, so it cannot be said to be a valid election. This Court feels that contention of counsel for the petitioner is liable to be rejected. After election of 24 members, Municipal Council was constituted by issuing a notification and , thereafter, President and Vice President were elected as per rules.

Counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any provisions of law to show that under these circumsrtances, election earlier conducted can be set aside and fresh election can be ordered. No case is made out for interference.

Writ Petition is dismissed.

( Jasbir Singh)

Judge

October 10,2006 (Pritam Pal)

RR Judge


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.