Deodhar vs Parag .
- SCC(2016) 14 SCC 722
- Neutral2016 INSC 223
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An interim order staying the declaration of election results passed by a High Court, merely two days before voting is to take place, may be set aside by the Supreme Court where the High Court has not adequately justified why the election result should not be declared, particularly where such stay affects the conduct of the electoral process; and the Election Officer may be directed to declare results pending the final adjudication of the underlying writ petitions on their merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1909 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3402 of 2016)
DEODHAR APPELLANT VERSUS
PARAG & ORS. RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1911 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3567 of 2016)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1912 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3987 of 2016)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, staying the declaration of election of Director of respondent No.3-Bank in General Category.
3. It is seen that the interim orders have been passed just two days prior to voting. We find it difficult to agree with the stand taken by the High Court that the result of election should not be declared. Whether the writ petitions Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi could have been entertained at all is a larger question to be Date: 2016.03.03 17:26:20 IST Reason:
considered by the High Court.
1 4. Be that as it may, the impugned interim orders dated 08.01.2016 in W.P.No.67/2016, W.P. No. 69/2016 and W.P. No.66/2016 passed by the High Court are, therefore, set aside. The Election Officer is directed to declare the results of the election which have been kept pending pursuant to the impugned order passed by the High Court, making it subject to the result of the final outcome of the writ petitions.
5. The appeals are allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.
.................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
......................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 29, 2016
2 ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3402/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 08/01/2016 in WP No. 67/2016 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur)
DEODHAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PARAG & ORS. Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
WITH SLP(C) No. 3567/2016 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 3987/2016 (With Interim Relief and Office Report)
Date : 29/02/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Sanghi, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv. For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of signed non-reportable judgment.
All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free