BIPIN SINGH PARMAR Vs. KANWAR DURGA CHAND
LAWS(HPH)-1997-4-49
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
Decided on April 10,1997

BIPIN SINGH PARMAR Appellant
VERSUS
KANWAR DURGA CHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DR. SHIPRA (SMT) AND ORS. VS. SHANTI LAL KHOIWAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
AZHAR HUSSAIN VS. RAJIV GANDHI [REFERRED TO]
SUBBARAO VS. MEMBER ELECTION TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
ANUP SINGH VS. ABDUL GHANI LACHMAN SINGH M L A [REFERRED TO]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [REFERRED TO]
HARDWARI LAL VS. KANWAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
UDHAV SINGH VS. MADHAV RAO SCINDIA [REFERRED TO]
U S SASIDHARAN VS. K KARUNAKARAN [REFERRED TO]
F A SAPA VAIVENGA SAIKAPTHIANGA ZALAWMA LALHUTHANGA VS. SINGORA:ZONUNTHARA:HRANGTHASANGA:T ROZAMA:ROMANA [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR JOSHI VS. NITIN BHAURAO PATIL [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUSUF VS. BHAIRON SINGH SHEKHAWAT [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P.K.PALLI,J. - (1.)The petitioner herein has called in question the election of the respondent who has been returned to the Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha from Sullah Assembly Constitutency in the bye - election held on may 27, 1995 result of which was declared on May 30, 1995. The respondent who contested the election on Congress ticket, secured 15159 votes as against the petitioner who secured 11897 votes. There were total number of eighteen candidates who filed nomination papers and after withdrawal, only seven candidates remained in the field.
(2.)The petitioner has attacked the election of the respondent on several corrupt practices committed by him as enumerated from paras 6 to 19 of the petition. In para 21 it has been averred that as the petitioner has also made allegations against Shri Virbhadra Singh, Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh who is also said to have committed corrupt practices at the instance and with the consent of the respondent and with a view of furtherance of the prospects of the election of the respondent and knowing fully well that what he was doing, was a corrupt practice, this Court should name and summon him and thereafter try him for various corrupt practices as given in the petition and take such suitable action against him as the law requires.
(3.)In the written statement filed by die respondent, several preliminary objections have been taken such as the affidavit in support of the petition is not attested to be true copy by the petitioner under his signatures and likewise pages 1 to 24 have not been attested as true copy of the petition. The non - attestation as stated, violates the provisions contained in Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act and the petition is sought to be dismissed under Section 86 of the said Act


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.