AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 230 wordsAjay Kumar Tripathi, CJ
Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4.
Writ application of the present Appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 25.01.2019. He approached the writ Court
challenging the order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the Collector-cum-District Election Officer, Kabirdham attaching his services with the office of the
District Election Officer.
Stand taken before the learned Single Judge was that he is a Class-II Officer, therefore, the Collector could not exercise such authority over him
and since there is no notification as such in relation to any elections, therefore, such order should be interfered with it.
The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that the Lok Sabha election is round the corner and that under the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, the Election Officer has been given the widest power to depute or take assistance of man, material and property for preparation or conduct
of election.
Since it is a temporary arrangement, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ application and we do not find any infirmity with the
view so taken, keeping in mind the statutory provision and the powers conferred on the Collector as the District Election Officer.
Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.