Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LATUR versus RAM BILAS AND ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LATUR v RAM BILAS AND ANR - CW Case No. 9102 of 2005 [2007] RD-RJ 4053 (20 August 2007)

SBCWP NO.9102/2005.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9102/2005.

Latur

Vs.

Ram Bilas and anr.

Date of Order : 20/8/2007.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Shri S.S. Hasan for the petitioner.

Shri Veyankatesh Garg for the respondents.

******

BY THE COURT:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 26/10/2005 whereby his election petition assailing the election of respondent No.1 as Sarpanch to the office of Gram Panchayat Bhojya Khedi,

Panchayat Samiti Anta, District Baran held and declared on 31/1/2005 was rejected. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the finding on Issue No.1 has not been correctly recorded by the Election Tribunal i.e. District and

Sessions Judge, Baran. It was argued that the petitioner had produced two witnesses, AW1 himself and AW2 Ramchandra who stated on oath that in all

SBCWP NO.9102/2005. 2098 votes were casted but when counting took place, only 1998 votes were found in the ballot box. Learned counsel further argued that in fact in all 2098 votes were casted but out of which, 100 votes were not counted being casted in favour of the petitioner and therefore respondent No.1 was illegally declared elected Sarpanch by the margin of 36 votes. 4) In the facts of the case, it is found that petitioner did not make any application before the

District Judge for summoning the details from various polling booths nor did he raise any such ground in his election petition to this effect so as to show that total of the votes casted in each polling booth comes to 2098 votes. 5) On perusal of finding on Issue No.1, I find that the learned District Judge held all the ballot boxes and not the ballot papers re-counted and on recounting it was found that petitioner had secured 457 votes and not 459 votes as original declared whereas winning candidate respondent No.1 secured 494 votes. In my view, learned District Judge rightly did not find any illegality in the election of respondent

No.1.

SBCWP NO.9102/2005. 6) Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage prays for filing application for summoning the record particularly the details of the different polling booths, all the ballot papers issued and the votes casted. 7) I am afraid, petitioner cannot impress upon his case in the present proceedings. The writ of certiorari before this Court is confined to the challenge as to whether the order passed by the

Election Tribunal suffers from any error apparent on the face of record or not. 8) I do not find that the order dated 26/10/2005 passed by the learned Election Tribunal i.e. District and Sessions Judge, Baran suffers from any error apparent on the face of record so as to justify interference by this Court in this writ of certiorari.

The petition is accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil


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.