Dismissed

Onkar v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2016CR/3575/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This revision petition challenged the dismissal of an election petition alleging corrupt practice and improper nomination acceptance. The Court held there is no estoppel barring filing an election petition despite prior approach to other forums, as statutory grounds enable the revision.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed as there is no ground for interfering with the order already passed.

Onkar Vs Sanjay Kumar and Ors. — Election Law | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

C.R. No.3575 of 2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R. No.3575 of 2016

¶5

Date of Decision.24.05.2016

¶6

Onkar son of Sh. Leela Ram .....Petitioner Vs. Sanjay Kumar and others ........Respondents Present: Mr. Aayush Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the caveators.

¶8

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

-.-

¶13

K. KANNAN J. (ORAL)

¶14

Thes revision petition is against the order passed dismissing an application for rejection of the petition. The election petition is founded on a plea of corrupt practice and improper acceptance of nomination, grounds which are available under Section 176 (4) (a) and Section 4(aa)(iii) of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. The objection by the present petitioner as a respondent in the court below, who was impleaded, was that the election could be challenged only on two grounds as found by Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Anuj Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pehowa 1998-2 Vol.CXIX PLR 393 . The said decision has been rendered before an amendment which was brought by introduction of Clause 4 (aa) by Act 17 of 2001 dated 18.12.2001. The Full Bench decision was restricting the grounds of election petition to be only the two grounds other PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.05.27 11:00 than what are mentioned under clause 2(a) (iii). It will not have any bearing I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

C.R. No.3575 of 2016 -2-

¶16

to the present petition. There is also an argument that the person who has filed the election petition had already approached the Deputy Commissioner and he had not taken all these objections before that forum. There could be no estoppel against a statutory right to approach a competent Tribunal for filing an election petition. The fact that he had approached some other forum can be no ground for rejection of the petition. The counsel says that even before the Returning Officer the petitioner had not taken any objection. So long as statutory right of making objection is set through grounds, the issue of whether he had set up all these objections before the Returning Officer or not and how it will impact, will be matters for consideration at the time of trial and cannot be a ground for rejection of the petition.

¶17

There is no ground for interfering with the order already passed. The revision petition is dismissed.

¶18

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶19

May 24, 2016 Pankaj*

¶20

PANKAJ KUMAR 2016.05.27 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Onkar v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkar v. Sanjay Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inderkali and Ors. Vs Joginer Pal and Ors.

M/S S.P. Construction Vs Raman Mann

Raj Bala & Ors. Vs Ashok & Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs Presiding Officer Election Tribunal Cum Additional Deputy Commissioner/Adc Patiala

Amit Kumar Vs M/S Parbh Dayal Megh Raj

Mukesh Kumari Vs Rohtash and Ors.