The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's application to implead the returning officer in an election petition. The court held that under Rule 83 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, such impleading is not mandatory.
Writ petition dismissed holding impleading of returning officer not mandatory.
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 AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 2182/2018
Mamta Devi W/o Dhri Dharendra Kumar, By Caste Valmiki, R/o Salemgarh Masani, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
Paramjeet Kaur W/o Shri Sukhpal Singh, By Caste Ramdasiya Sikh, R/o Ward No. 5, Salemgarh Masani, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh Raj..
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Bhaleria For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order
21/02/2019
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
170-Arvind/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether impleading the returning officer as a respondent in an election petition under Rule 83 of the Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 is mandatory.
Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading the returning officer calls for interference.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mamta Devi W/o Dhri Dharendra Kumar
Paramjeet Kaur W/o Shri Sukhpal Singh
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
