LexMOHD. AKRAM ANSARI versus CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( -I MOHD. AKRAM ANSARI v. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER & ORS. DECEMBER 4, 2_007 [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Election Law: A B Delhi Wakf Act, 1995-s.31-A (asamendedin2006)-Prevention C of disqualification for membership of Assembly of NCT, Delhi- Retrospection operation of-HELD: The use of words "and shall be deemed never to have been disqualified" in the provision makes it clear that it is retrospective-Therefore, even if the elected candidate was disqualified in 2003 for holding office of Chairman of Delhi Wakf Board, he has to be deemed not to have been disqualified in view of D s. 31-A which was inserted in 2006. Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., [2003) 2 SCC 111 and Raja Shatrunjit (dead) by Lrs. v. MohammadAzmaAzim . Khan and Ors., AIR (1971) SC 1474, relied on. E East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council, [1951] 2 All ER 587, referred to. Judgment-HELD: There is a presumption in law that a judge deals with all points which have been pressed before him-If a point F is not mentioned in judgment, presumption is that it was never pressed before the judge and was given up-However, presumption is re butt able-It is open to party concerned to file an application before the same judge or Bench which delivered the judgment, and, on being satisfied, it is open to the court concerned to pass appropriate orders G including an order of review and ordinarily it is not open to the party concerned to file an appeal and seek to argue a point which even if having been taken in petition or memorandum was not dealt with in the judgment-On facts, in view of presumption, points not allowed 901 H 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A to be raised before Supreme Court-Presumption. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4981 of 2006. From the Judgment/Order dated 22.8.2006 of the High Court of B Delhi at New Delhi in E.P. No.2/2004. • WITH C.A. No. 5828 of 2006. L.C. Goyal for the Appellant. Mohd. Akram Ansari, Appellant-In- C Person in C.A. No. 5828 of 2006. D Meenakshi Arora, Balraj Dewan, Zafar Sadique, Mohd. Shahid, Mohd. Shajid and Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondents and Naved Y ar Khan Respondent No. 6-In-Person. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties including the appellant appearing in person in C.A. No. 5828/2006. The appellant in C.A. No. E 5828/2006 is also respondent No. 6 in C.A. No. 498112006. 2. C.A. No. 498112006 is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Election Petition No. 2/2004. C.A. No. 5828/2006 is directed F against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the same learned Single Judge of the High Court in Election Petition No. 3/2004. The appellant in C.A. No. 5828/2006 (who was petitioner in Election Petition No. 3/2004) has stated before the High Court that Election Petitions No. 2 and 3 of2004 were almost identical and hence no evidence was recorded in Election Petition No. 3/2004. G H 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant contested the election to the Delhi Legislative Assembly in 2003 but lost. The respondent Haroon Yusuf was declared elected. At the time of the election Haroon Yusuf was also the Chairman of the Delhi WaqfBoard. ··"'-' MOHD. AKRAM ANSARI v. CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER 903 4. The question involved in both these appeals is whether the office A of Chairperson or Members of the WalfBoard is an office of profit so as to disqualify a person from being elected as a member of the Legislative Assembly ofNCT of Delhi. It may be noted here that an amendment has been brought about inthe Wakf Act, 1995 by way of The Wakf(Delhi Amendment) Act, 2006 (Delhi Act 3 of2006) by inserting Section 3 lA B in the 1995 Act. Section 31A of the Wakf Act, 1995 as amended by The Wakf(Delhi Amendment) Act, 2006 reads as under:- "31 A. Prevention of disqualification for membership of Legislative Assembly of National Capital Territory of Delhi. It is hereby declared that the offices of the Chairperson or c Members of the Board constituted for Union Territory of Delhi shall not be disqualified and shall be deemed never to have been disqualified for being chosen as, or for being, a member of the -( Legislative Assembly ofNational Capital Territory of Delhi." D 5. The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that the aforesaid Sectio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.