DILIP KUMAR CHAURASIYA Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU BHAIJI
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on September 19,1990

DILIP KUMAR CHAURASIYA Appellant
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDRA SAHU BHAIJI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE OF U P VS. COL JAI KRISHAN [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
U P AVAS EVAM VIKAS PARISHAD VS. SATYA PRAKASH [LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAY SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DIST JUDGE IIND MUZAFFARNAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-1992-8-30] [REFERRED TO]
UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. BHULANBARAREE COAL CO LTD [LAWS(CAL)-1998-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
SATCHIKITSA PRASARAK MANDAL VS. MAHARASHTRA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [LAWS(BOM)-2007-6-11] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties. We proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(2.)Petitioner was elected as Sabhasad for Nagar Mahapalika, Allhabad. Respondent 1 filed a petition challenging the election of the petitioner. After notice to the parties, the 2nd Additional District Judge before whom the election petition was pending, listed the case from time to time. Ultimately on May 31, 1990 he took up the case and made an ex parte order declaring respondent (1) as duly elected candidate while at the same time setting aside the election of the petitioner. Against the said ex parte order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court, while admitting the appeal, however, did not grant stay of the impugned order. That created all the problem. The petitioner approached the Additional District Judge complaining that the ex parte order made on May 31, 1990 was without an intimation to him since the case was not listed on that day. He pleaded that the order should be set aside and till his application is decided, the order should be stayed. Learned District Judge gave an ex parte order, subsequently confirmed it with opportunity to both the parties. He has expressed the view that the ex parte declaration he gave in favour of the respondent on May 31, 1990 was incorrect and the case was not listed on that date for consideration. Against the said order of stay, the respondent by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution moved the High Court challenging its validity. The High Court has allowed the writ petition quashing that order with a direction to the learned District Judge to determine his own jurisdiction to issue the stay in a matter like this.
(3.)The instant appeal has been preferred against the order of the High Court.
;


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