Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Amar Kumar v. State Of U.P. Thru' Election Commission & Others - WRIT - C No. 62130 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3744 (30 September 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 62130 of 2005

                       Amar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri P.N.Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

In the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court questioning in pith and substance validity of the election proceedings. Now result has been declared.

At this juncture Article 243 -O of the Constitution of India and Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 are to be looked into:

"243-O- Bar to interference by Courts in election matters- Notwithstanding any thing in this Constitution-

(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K shall not be called in question in any Court.  

(b) no election to any Panchayats shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.

U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

Section 12 C:- Application for questioning the elections-(1) The election of a person as Pradhan [***] or as member of a [Gram Panchayat] including the election of [a person appointed] as the Panch of Nyaya Panchayat under Section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that -

(a) the election has not been free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election or

 (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected-

(i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or

(ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act the rules framed thereunder

(2) The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices of bribery undue influence for the purposes of this Act.

(A) Bribery that is to say, any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate of a gratification to any person with the connivance of a candidate of gratification to any person whomsoever with the object directly indirectly of including-

(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or withdraw from being a candidate at any election; or

(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election or as reward to.

(i) a person for having so stood or not stood or have withdrawn his candidature or

(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting.

(B) Undue influence that is to say, any direct or in direct interference of attempt to interfere on the part of a candidate or of any other person with the connivance of the candidate with the free exercise of any electoral right:

provided that without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of the clause any such person as is referred to therein whomsoever

(i) threatens any  candidate, or any elector or any person in whom candidate or any elector is interested with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community; or

(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the elections right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause.

(3) The application under sub-section (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

In the light of the aforementioned provision the present writ petition is not maintainable. Remedy of petitioner lies by filing election petition before the Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. In case any election petition is filed, then endeavour shall be made by the Prescribed Authority to conclude the same preferably within a period of one year, subject to cooperation being extended by the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment

With the above direction the present writ petition is dismissed.




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


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 |

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