TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

HC reserves verdict on Uchana MLA's plea

Seeks dismissal of poll petition filed against him by Cong candidate
The Punjab and Haryana High Court. Tribune photo

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today reserved its judgment on an application filed by Devender Attri, a BJP MLA from Uchana. He was seeking dismissal of the election petition filed against him by Congress candidate Bijendra Singh.

Advertisement

Bijendra had filed a petition against Attri, seeking recounting of votes and alleging corrupt practises against him. Later, Bijendra filed amended petition, dropping the allegations of corrupt practises.

Advertisement

Appearing on Attri’s behalf, senior advocate Satya Pal Jain and counsel Dheeraj Jain submitted that the amended election petition by Bijendra Singh had not been filed in accordance with law and was in violation of Section 81 of the RPA Act.

Jain submitted that the petition had not been presented personally by the petitioner but by his lawyer, which was not permissible in law. He said the petition supplied to the returned candidate was only a photocopy of the original, which was not signed or attested to be a true copy by the petitioner.

Senior advocate Abhimanyu Tiwari, appearing for Bijendra, submitted that the filing of amended petition would relate back to the date of original petition and that such an application of the returned candidate had already been dismissed. He further submitted that the copy of the petition supplied to the returned candidate was the true copy and the signatures of the petitioner and lawyers were visible on the copy supplied to the respondent. As such, the petition was not liable to be dismissed 'in limine' or at the threshold.

Advertisement

Justice Anoop Chitkara reserved orders after hearing both sides.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement