In a stay application challenging a writ petition against the eligibility of a returned candidate, the High Court held there was no illegality or perversity in the trial court's findings regarding age and education qualifications. The stay application was dismissed.
The stay application is dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.809/2018
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1095/2018
Mubeena D/o Ismail Khan
----Petitioner
Versus
District Election Officer, Alwar & Others
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Altaf Hussain,
Mr.Arafat Hussain.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Nitin Jain.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
23/02/2018
Heard the counsel for the petitioner on the stay application and perused the finding of the trial court on issue no.1 and 2.
I am of the considered view that in the context of the facts on record prima facie nothing illegal and perverse can be attributed to the finding of the trial court on the issue of petitioner-returned candidate not being 21 years of age and not having passed Class-VIII from recognized school.
In this view of the matter no case to stay the impugned judgment is made out.
The stay application is accordingly dismissed.
(ALOK SHARMA)J.
Karan/59
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prima facie case exists to stay the impugned judgment on the quantum of age and educational qualification requirements for election candidacy.
Whether the trial court's finding that the petitioner was not of the requisite age and lacked Class-VIII qualification was illegal or perverse.
Mubeena D/o Ismail Khan
District Election Officer, Alwar & Others
Alok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
