JAENENDRA KUMAR PHOOLCHAND DAFTARI versus RAJENDRA RAMSUKH MISHRA

JAENENDRA KUMAR PHOOLCHAND DAFTARI versus RAJENDRA RAMSUKH MISHRA

The Presiding Officer can conduct election by secret ballot only when demanded by a member present; absence of such demand invalidates election by secret ballot. There is no legal requirement to allot candidate symbols for secret ballot voting, even for illiterate voters. The High Court was justified in not interfering as the factual findings were supported by the records and not denied specifically.

Parties
Appellant: Jaenendra Kumar Phoolchand Daftari; Respondent 1: Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Village Panchayat Elections, Election Procedure, Voting Method
Election Law Local Government Law Village Panchayat Elections Election Procedure Voting Method

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaenendra Kumar Phoolchand Daftari

Appellant

Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra

Respondent 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an express demand by a member is necessary for election by secret ballot under Rule 10(2)
  2. 2 Whether symbols must be allotted to candidates for secret ballot voting
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to interfere with the Collector and Commissioner’s findings

Ratio Decidendi

The Presiding Officer can conduct election by secret ballot only when demanded by a member present; absence of such demand invalidates election by secret ballot. There is no legal requirement to allot candidate symbols for secret ballot voting, even for illiterate voters. The High Court was justified in not interfering as the factual findings were supported by the records and not denied specifically.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Appellant to pay Rs. 5,000 as costs to respondent 1.