REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RADHAPADA BISWAS Appellant

V/S

STATE Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GUJARAT UNIVERSITY V. N.V.RAJGURU AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
BANAMALI GURIA V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE CADRE AUTHORITY AND ANR V. K.S.BAJPAI V. ORS. [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA KUMAR V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
ARYA VYASA SABHA V. THE COMMISSIONERS OF HINDU CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENT. HYDERABAD AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNNI ALIAS MOOPIL NAYAR RAVUNNIARATH UNNIMALU AMMA ALIAS DEVAKI AMMAL RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON K C GOPALAN UNNI THATHUNNI NAIR P KOCHUNNI RAJA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
A V VENKATESWARAN COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BOMBAY VS. RAMCHAND SOBHRAJ WADHWANI [REFERRED TO]
C S ROWJEE VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARLAL GIRDHARLAL JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT IN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ANGLO AF GHAN AGENCIES CIVIL APPEALS NOS 973 TO 975 OF 1967 THE UNION OF INDIA IN ALL THE APPEALS APPELLANT V OM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
BABUBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL VS. NANDLAL KHODTDAS BAROT [REFERRED TO]
S BALDEV SINGH VS. TEJA SINGH SWATANTAR DEAD [REFERRED TO]
D L F HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPN [REFERRED TO]
SUKHAD RAJ SINGH VS. RAM HARSH MISRA [REFERRED TO]
K K SHRIVASTAVA VS. BHUPENDRA KUMAR JAIN [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
PEOPLES UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S JAGADEESAN VS. AYYA NADAR JANAKI AMMAL COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR BOSE VS. MORD FURKAN ANSARI [REFERRED TO]
A N SHASHTRI VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S T MUTHLJSAMI VS. K NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
UPADHYAYA HARGOVIND DEVSHANKER VS. DHIRENDRASTNH VIRBHADRASTNHJI SOLANKI [REFERRED TO]
P K K SHAMSUDEEN VS. K A M MAPPILLAI MOHTNDEEN [REFERRED TO]
ANDI MUKTA SADGURU SHREE MUKTAJEE VANDAS SWAMI SUVARNA JAYANTI MAHOTSAV SMARAK TRUST VS. V R RUDANI [REFERRED TO]
ASOM RASTRABHASA PRACHAR SAMITI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR AUTO STORES VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMBIKA PRASAD DUBEY VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. DORJEE TSHERING BHUTIA [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY PLACE GROUP HOUSING ASSOCIATION VS. AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
SHAMKANT NARAYAN DESHPANDE VS. MAHARASH IRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
PROTAP CHANDRA KOYAL VS. KALI CHARAN ACHARJYA [REFERRED TO]
MALAM SINGH VS. COLLECTOR SEHORE M P [REFERRED TO]
MARCHHIA SAHUN VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE matters have been taken up together for hearing as they involve common questions of law and the reliefs prayed for therein will to a large extent be dependant on the answers to the said questions. Furthermore, the Court has also benefitted from the assistance of the several counsels appearing on behalf of the respective parties to arrive at a decision on the issues involved. '

(2.) THESE writ applications are the aftermath of the Panchayet elections conducted in the State on 30th May, 1993, and the challenges thrown to the conduct of the elections in some of the constituencies, though varied are more or less uniform in nature. Sonne of the cases relate to the alleged refusal of the Presiding Officer or the Returning Officer to entertain the applications alleged to have been made for recounting of votes, while others relate to directions given by the State Government for holding repoll. In some such cases, the election results had been declared and Certificates of election in Form 24 had already been issued to the successful candidates when repoll was ordered.

(3.) THE factual aspect apart, the common question of law involved in the majority of these cases is whether the High Court could or should at all interfere in these matters under Article 226 of the Constitution when an alternate and presumably efficacious remedy has been provided for under section 204 of the West Bengal Panchayet Act, 1973. Accordingly, this question will have to be decided first, before we proceed to the other points involved in each of the cases.

Click here to view full judgment.

RADHAPADA BISWAS Vs. STATE

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address