ELECTION PETITION ON THE GROUND OF CORRUPT PRACTICE

ELECTION PETITION AGAINST A SUCCESS GAINED CANDIDATE BY UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATE 

 If a candidate who has lost the public election and challenged the election by filling a election petition against the candidate who has gained success in that public election on the ground of corrupt practice then burden of proof lie upon his shoulder and he should take extra care and leave no room for doubt while making such type  allegation as  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held  in the case of  C. P. John Versus Babu M. Palissery reported in A.W.C. 2015(1) page 940.

       Hon'ble Apex Court   considered and examine the provision of section 123 (1), 123 (4), 83 (1) and 86 of  Representation of the People Act 1951 and held that   unless and until election petitioner comes forwarded with the definite pea of his case that allegation of corrupt practice is supported by legally acceptable material evidence without iota of doubt as to such allegation- Election petition can not be entertained and will have to rejected at threshold.

           In the filing of an election  petition challenging the successful election of a candidate, the election petitioner should take extra care and leave no room for doubt while making any allegation of corrupt practice indulged in by the successful candidate and that he cannot be letter on heard to state that allegations were generally spoken to or discussed sporadically and that basis election petition came to filed as according to view of Hon'ble court since a successful candidate in an election has got the support of the majority of the voters who cast their votes in his favour, so a unsuccessful candidate cannot be allowed  to call a successful candidate in question by making frivolous or baseless allegations and thereby unnecessarily drag him in to the court proceedings and make waste of his precious time, which time should be spent in welfare of public of his constituency.       

SCOPE OF WRIT JURISDICTION AGAINST JUDICIAL ORDER OF CIVIL COURT

 Whether against the Judicial order of Civil court, Writ of certiorari can be issue under Article 226 of Constitution of India 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2548 of 2009, connected

with Special Leave Petition (C) No.25828 of 2013, dated 26.2.2015,

Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others held and answer that

(i) Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution;

(ii) Jurisdiction under Article 227 is distinct from jurisdiction

from jurisdiction under Article 226.

 And Hon'ble High Court Allahabad also has fallowed the order of Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ-C No. 11761 of 2015 ( Thakur Prasad Versus Beni Prasad (Now Deceased) and others) decided on 25.03.2015
            In view of aforesaid Judgments now writ Petition under Article 226 of constitution against the judicial order passed by Civil court in civil proceeding is not maintainable. and same cane be challenged only appeal or Revision  and in some cases petition under Article 227 of Constitution can be filed as according to aforesaid judgments only limited jurisdiction which a High Court has arising out of the judicial orders passed by the civil court, is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
 
 

nportance of 7 years period in dowry case

nportance of 7 years period in dowry case

some of people think that after 7 years of marriage husband and in-laws are safe from the case of dowry but it is not correct because they can be prosecuted under section 498-A  I.P. C and under prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and period of seven years is only for dowry death as if any lady died in UN-natural death and she was subjected  to  cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry then it will be presumed that her death was dowry death and burden of prof will lie upon accused persons but after 7 years if she died and it was alleged that she was kill by her in-laws then burden of proof lie upon prosecution .

scope of section 151 and order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.

scope of section 151 and order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.

Hon'ble Supreme court of India has defined the scope of section 151 and order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. in the case of Ramji Gupta versus Krishan Agrawal reported in A.I.R. 2013, S.C. 3099 and held that:-
1. A stranger who was not party in suit can not filed an application under order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.for recall of an ex-party decree.
2.  Inherent power under section 151 of C.P.C. can be exercised by a court  to redress only such grievances for which no other remedy is provided under C.P.C.
3.  In the event that an order has been obtained by playing fraud upon court then it is always open to the court to recall the said order on the application of the person aggrieved and such power can also be exercised by the Appellate court.
4.  Where the fraud has been committed upon a party, the court cannot investigate the factual issue, and in such an eventuality, a party has the right to get the said judgment or order set aside by filing an independent suit.

Effect of allotment of more than three chaks during consolidation

Effect of allotment of more than three chaks during consolidation

There is two proviso in section 19 (e) of  U.P. consolidation Act.
1.That, more than three chaks may not be allotted to any tenure holder without permission in writing of  Deputy Director of consolidation.
2. That, no any allotment shall be invalid merely on the ground that more than three chaks have been allotted to any tenure holder.
      From bare perusal of these proviso it appears that both are contradictory of each.
      In my opinion generally more than three chaks should not be allotted to a tenure holder and if necessary than written permission from Deputy Director Should be obtained but if more than three chaks have been allotted to the any tenure holder and otherwise allotment is justified except permission of Deputy Director of consolidation then allotment may not be cancelled on sole ground non permission of Deputy Director of Consolidation.
       Purpose of these proviso is that if several chaks will be allotted then purpose of consolidation will be failed but also injustice should not be done with any tenure holder in the garb of number of chak.
         In my opinion second proviso will be prevail over first proviso but also second proviso should not be used as weapon for justified the every allotment of more than three chaks.

         In my one case Settlement Officer of Consolidation adjusted the land of main road side equally between two brothers but in doing so it become four chaks to each brother and in revision filed by one brother who had entire land of road side, Deputy Director of Consolidation set side the order of S.O.C. and now matter is pending before Hon'ble High Court Allahabad and Hon'ble High Court has stayed the effect and operation of order of D.D.C. 

SCOPE OF SECTION 47 AND 60 (1) (c) OF C.P.C. AND ORDER 21 RULE 58 AND 90 OF C.P.C.

SCOPE OF SECTION 47 AND 60 (1) (c) OF C.P.C. AND ORDER 21 RULE 58 AND 90 OF C.P.C.

Issue regarding scope of section 47 and 60 (1) (c) of C.P.C. and Order 21 Rule 58 and 90 of C.P.C. has been decided by Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in the case of Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 506 of 1990 (Mehtab versus VIIIth Additional District Judge and others) and Hon'ble court held that-

1. if an objection under order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. was filed and same was dismissed and later on another objection was filed under section 47 of  C.P.C. was filed on the ground that according to section 60 (1) (c) land can not be attached or auctioned than same is maintainable even after confirmation of sale and res judicata is not apply and same can not be dismissed on the ground of dismissal of earlier objection either under order 21 Rule 58 or 90 of C.P.C.

2. Politics can not be accepted as a regular source of income. Even if some unscrupulous person joins politics with a view to earn money  and politics is not meant  for earning money, illegal source of income cannot be taken in to the consideration.

3. if judgment debtor filed revenue record to show that he has agricultural land then it can not accepted the argument that land is quite small in area hence it could not be sufficient to meet the expenses as it is the story of millions of farmers in India that they have got insufficient land. .

REMEDY TO AN ACCUSED IN UTTAR PRADESH DURING INVESTIGATION

REMEDY TO AN ACCUSED IN UTTAR PRADESH DURING INVESTIGATION

There is no provision of interim bail in Uttar Pradesh so there is question that what remedy is available to an accused person who believes that he has been falsely implicated in criminal case and he has evidence to prove that he is innocent but that evidence can be produced only at the time of defense evidence before that he has to face trial and got bail even he may remain in Jail for long time. In this situation he may approach to Investigating Officer or higher authorities of police but in doing so he may be arrested. He may approach to Hon'ble High court and challenge the F.I.R. but in Writ jurisdiction only F.I.R. Version can be seen but his defence  evidence will not be considered as view of Hon'ble courts. in this situation person who has been falsely implicated in a criminal case is helpless. so our leaders and Hon'ble courts must think about this serious problem and made amendment in present law so that a innocent person may be saved from harassment and a culprit may be punished because ratio of false implication in in Uttar Pradesh is more than other states and countries.