HARI VISHNU KAMATH versus SYED AHMAD ISHAQUE AND OTHERS.

HARI VISHNU KAMATH versus SYED AHMAD ISHAQUE AND OTHERS.

The decision of the Election Tribunal to maintain the election of the first respondent on the basis of 301 votes that were liable to be rejected under Rule 47(1)(c) was a manifest error on the face of the record, and called for interference via certiorari. Rule 47(1)(c) is mandatory, and votes not bearing the proper marks prescribed must be excluded. The court further held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 to issue writs of certiorari against decisions of Election Tribunals is unaffected by Article 329(b), and may be exercised even after the tribunal becomes functus officio. However, the court refused to declare the appellant elected, as in view of Section 97 and findings...

Parties
Appellant: Hari Vishnu Kamath; Respondent No. 1: Syed Ahmad Ishaque
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 1954
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under Article 132(1) of the Constitution of India / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Nagpur
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decisions of the High Court and Election Tribunal quashed; entire election set aside.
Legal Topics
Writ of Certiorari, Writ of Prohibition, Powers of High Court Under Articles 226 and 227, Representation of the People Act and Rules, Error Apparent on the Face of Record, Mandatory or Directory Statutory Provisions
Constitutional Law Election Law Writ of Certiorari Writ of Prohibition Powers of High Court Under Articles 226 and 227 Representation of the People Act and Rules Error Apparent on the Face of Record Mandatory or Directory Statutory Provisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hari Vishnu Kamath

Appellant

Syed Ahmad Ishaque

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under Article 132(1) of the Constitution of India / Appeal From the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Nagpur

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals
  2. 2 Whether writ of certiorari can be issued after tribunals become functus officio
  3. 3 Distinction between writs of prohibition and certiorari

Ratio Decidendi

The decision of the Election Tribunal to maintain the election of the first respondent on the basis of 301 votes that were liable to be rejected under Rule 47(1)(c) was a manifest error on the face of the record, and called for interference via certiorari. Rule 47(1)(c) is mandatory, and votes not bearing the proper marks prescribed must be excluded. The court further held that the power of the High Court under Article 226 to issue writs of certiorari against decisions of Election Tribunals is unaffected by Article 329(b), and may be exercised even after the tribunal becomes functus officio. However, the court refused to declare the appellant elected, as in view of Section 97 and findings...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decisions of the High Court and Election Tribunal quashed; entire election set aside.

Orders

  • The decisions of the High Court and Election Tribunal are quashed.
  • The whole election is set aside.