TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeal due to lack of locus standi and inapplicability of withdrawal provisions.</h1> <h3>THAMMANNA Versus K. VEERA REDDY & ORS.</h3> The appeal was dismissed as the appellant lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the appeal. The court held that the appellant did not fulfill the ... - Issues Involved:1. Competency of the appellant to maintain the appeal.2. Interpretation of 'person aggrieved' in the context of election petitions.3. Applicability of Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act to appeals.Summary:Issue 1: Competency of the appellant to maintain the appealA preliminary objection was raised questioning the competency of Shri Thammanna to maintain the appeal, arguing he does not fulfill the character of a 'person aggrieved' by the High Court's judgment. The appellant did not file any written statement, lead evidence, or participate in the arguments before the High Court. The court emphasized that the appellant was not a necessary party and did not join the contest at any stage, thus lacking locus standi to prefer the appeal.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'person aggrieved'The court examined the term 'person aggrieved' and concluded that it must be a person who has suffered a legal grievance or has been adversely affected by the decision. In this case, the appellant did not participate in the proceedings and was not prejudicially affected by the High Court's decision. Therefore, he could not be considered a 'person aggrieved.'Issue 3: Applicability of Sections 109 and 110 of the Representation of the People Act to appealsThe court discussed whether the provisions of Sections 109 and 110, which restrict the withdrawal of election petitions, apply to appeals. It was concluded that these sections do not apply to appeals under Section 116C, which governs the procedure for appeals in the Supreme Court. The court held that an appellant has the right to withdraw an appeal unconditionally, and this right is not restricted by Sections 109 and 110. The principle that an election petition is a representative action has limited application and does not extend to appeals.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the preliminary objection that the appellant did not have the necessary locus standi to maintain the appeal. The appellant was not a 'person aggrieved' by the High Court's decision, and the provisions restricting withdrawal of election petitions do not apply to appeals. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
TaxTMI 
