MURTAZA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter, is ignored. Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is seeking a direction upon the respondent State Election Commission to extend the date of completion of exercise of election process under the powers conferred under section 540 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 .

(3.) THE aforesaid facts therefore indicate that the election process has been set rolling by issuance of the notification. Counsel for the respondent -State Election Commission has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh and another vs. State of U.P. And others reported in (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 303 and submits that under the provisions of Article 243 -ZG, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition challenging the electoral process in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of the aforesaid contention, he refers paragraph -14 of the said judgment which is quoted hereunder: