Supreme Court of India
SH. MOHD. AYUB KHAN versus PROF. BHIM SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 14 March 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] 3 S.C.R. 420 · 1996 INSC 382
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
The Election Conunission had issued notification on May 16, 1988 for holding bye-elections to the 5-Udhampur Parliamentary Constituency in the State of J ammu & Kashmir and the result of the election was declared. Counting of the vote commenced on June 20, 1992. On a reference by the Returning Officer on June 21, 1988, the Election Commission directed repoll at certain polling stations. Accordingly, repoll was done in those booths. The result of the election was challenged in the Election Petition No. 1 of 1988. The High Court in the impugned order dated October 13, 1992 has set aside the election on the grounds that under Section 64-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Election Commission had no power to order repoll and that, therefore, the election was void. The High Court, however, noted that since the previous Parliament stood dissolved and new Parliament was constituted, no order for repoll could be made.
pp. 420–421, margin G
Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel- !ant, contended that the Election Commission has got power to order repoll and, therefore, the order of the High Court is clearly illegal. It is not necessary for us at this stage to go into that question since it is only an academic issue. The High Court having noticed that the previous Parliament to which the election came to be held stood dissolved and that a new Parliament was constituted, should have declined to go into the question. Nonetheless, the High Court has given it declaration which has only an academic value. We need not go into the said academic question since no substantial relief could be given, if the matter is to be heard on merits.
p. 421, margin C
We are not expressing.any opinion on merits since we have already held that the view expressed by the High Court is an academic issue. The findings recorded therein would not be treated as a binding precedent.
p. 421, margin E
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
p. 421, margin E