<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (3) TMI 733 - Delhi High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171942</link>
    <description>Article 226 remained available in election-related disputes despite an alternative statutory remedy under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, because judicial review may still lie in exceptional circumstances where the election process itself is alleged to be vitiated. The non-joinder of elected office bearers was not fatal where their interests were adequately represented and no prejudice was shown. On the merits, a finding of voter confusion could not support countermanding the election when the electorate was small, the rival factions had clearly stated their positions, and the record did not credibly support the allegation that voters stayed away because of confusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2015 10:33:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392821" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 733 - Delhi High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171942</link>
      <description>Article 226 remained available in election-related disputes despite an alternative statutory remedy under the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1971, because judicial review may still lie in exceptional circumstances where the election process itself is alleged to be vitiated. The non-joinder of elected office bearers was not fatal where their interests were adequately represented and no prejudice was shown. On the merits, a finding of voter confusion could not support countermanding the election when the electorate was small, the rival factions had clearly stated their positions, and the record did not credibly support the allegation that voters stayed away because of confusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171942</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>