HARNEK SINGH versus CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

HARNEK SINGH versus CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS.

The High Court should not have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain an election dispute since efficacious statutory remedy is provided under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, which is in pari materia with Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. The writ petition was not maintainable, and the impugned judgment setting aside the election was liable to be set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Harnek Singh; Respondent: Charanjit Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in C.w.p. No. 1987 of 2003
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.
Legal Topics
Maintainability of Writ Petition in Election Disputes, Jurisdiction Under Article 226, Alternative Remedies Under Election Commission Act
Election Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Maintainability of Writ Petition in Election Disputes Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Alternative Remedies Under Election Commission Act

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harnek Singh

Appellant

Charanjit Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in C.w.p. No. 1987 of 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition regarding the validity of an election for Chairman of Gram Panchayat when an alternative remedy exists under the Punjab State Election Commission Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court should not have exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain an election dispute since efficacious statutory remedy is provided under Section 89 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, which is in pari materia with Section 100 of the Representation of People Act. The writ petition was not maintainable, and the impugned judgment setting aside the election was liable to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside.
  • No costs ordered.