High Courts(2008) 11 AHC CK 0127

Dilshad Ahmad vs VIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge/Election Tribunal, Saharanpur and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 12 November 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.P.Mehrotra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8480 of 1990

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 319 words

S.P. Mehrotra, J.

1.

Consequent to the death of Sri Ambrish Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the notice dated 13.9.2004 was issued by Registered Post A.D., to the petitioner to engage another Counsel fixing 25.10.2004.

2.

The Office Report dated 18.9.2008 shows that despite the said notice having been issued to the petitioner, none has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

3.

It appears that an Election Petition was filed by Mahboob Makki challenging the election of the petitioner as a Member of the Nagar Palika, Saharanpur from Ward No. 39, Mohalla Lohani Sarai, Saharanpur. The voting was held on 10.11.1989, and the result of the said election was declared on 11.1.1989. The said Election Petition was numbered as Election Petition No. 35 of 1989.

4.

By the judgment and order dated 26.3.1990 passed by the Vllth Additional District and Sessions Judge/Election Tribunal, Saharanpur, the said Election Petition was allowed, and the election of the petitioner as a Member of Nagar Palika, Saharanpur from Ward No. 39 was set aside, and the membership of the said Ward was declared vacant. The direction was also given in the said order for holding fresh election of member of the said Ward within six months.

5.

Against the said judgment and order dated 26.3.1990, the present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner.

6.

By the order dated 10.4.1990, the Writ Petition was admitted and the notice was directed to be issued. Further, on the Stay Application, the Court passed the following order:

"Issue notice.

In the meantime, the operation of the order dated 26.3.1990 passed by the respondent No. 1 shall remain stayed."

7.

Eighteen years have passed since the admission of the Writ Petition and the grant of the stay order.

8.

The Writ Petition has evidently become infructuous by lapse of time.

9.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous. Writ petition dismissed.