Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

Rights of Declared Candidates Upheld: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Election Participation Despite Disqualification Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court has made a significant decision regarding the election process of the Supreme Court Bar Association Multi-State Cooperative Group-Housing Society Ltd. The court upheld the rights of the declared candidates to participate in the elections, despite a disqualification order by the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

The petition, challenging the authority and jurisdiction of the disqualification order, was heard by the Acting Chief Justice and Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora. The order in question had disqualified 15 elected members of the outgoing Board from being elected as members for a period of five years.

In a statement that underscores the essence of the judgment, the Court observed, “The impugned order shall operate prospectively,” indicating that the rights of the candidates declared in the final list published on January 11, 2024, remain unaffected by the disqualification order.

The petitioners argued that the order was without jurisdiction, contrary to the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Rules, 2002, and that it was inappropriate to exclude candidates on the eve of the elections. The Court noted the completion of the nomination process and the publication of the final list of candidates, emphasizing the importance of these procedural milestones in the election process.

Respondent Nos. 7 and 8, who appeared in person, argued for the legitimacy of the disqualification order under Section 43(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. However, the Court’s decision focused on the timing and procedure followed in the election process, particularly the role and declarations made by the Returning Officer.

Ultimately, the High Court directed that the elections be conducted as per the final list of candidates, including those who were subject to the disqualification order. However, the Court reserved the right for the petitioners, as well as the respondents, to pursue their statutory remedies against the impugned order.

Date of Decision: 16th January, 2024

ARUN KUMAR MISHRA & ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

 

Similar News