Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NATTHU SINGH versus U.P. STATE LOCAL BODIES ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Natthu Singh v. U.P. State Local Bodies Election Commission & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 52436 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1786 (28 July 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.34

CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.52436 OF 2005

Natthu Singh .......... Petitioner

Versus

U.P. State Local Bodies Election Commission, Lucknow & Ors.

     ..........                        Respondents

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents nos. 2 and 3 to enter the name of the petitioner in the voter list of Panchayat Elections, 2005 and to issue a fresh supplementary voter list forthwith; to permit the petitioner to contest the Panchayat Elections 2005 going to be held in August, 2005 and permit the petitioner to file nomination papers.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is the resident of Village Madarpur, Block Dahgawan, Tehsil Sahaswan, District Budaun since birth. The names of the petitioner and his wife were mentioned at Serial No. 615 and 616 in the voter list of the last LoK Sabha election. The Voter List also indicates that the Identity Card of the petitioner was prepared but could not be issued to the petitioner. In the last General Elections of Panchayat, which was held in the year 2000, the petitioner, his wife, mother, and brothers were also the voters and the Gram Panchayat Adhikari of village Madarpur had issued a copy of the Extract of Pariwar Register from which it is established that the petitioner is resident of Village Madarpur, District Budaun. In the month of June, 2005 the Voter List was pasted on Notice Board in the office of respondent no.2 and it was sent to the Panchayat Secretary, Village Madarpur who also published the same at a Public Place i.e. Primary School, Madarpur, District Budaun and called for applications if names of voters were not mentioned in the list. The brother of petitioner Sheo Raj and his wife Smt. Munnisa have been mentioned at Serial Nos. 226 and 227 in the voter List of Panchayat Elections 2005, but other family members of petitioner have not been included in the said voter list. Thus, the petitioner approached the Assistant Development Officer, (Panchayat) and made a representation to include his name  in the voter list issued for Panchayat Election, 2005. On the said application, respondent no.2 directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sahaswan to enquire into the matter and correct the voter list. It has been alleged in the petition that the on 06.07.2005, the respondent no.3 called the petitioner and asked that his name would not be include in the voter list till his posting at Sahaswan and threw the entire papers. Hence the present petition.

Shri P.N. Rai and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that in paragraph 15 of the writ petition allegations have been made against the respondent no.3, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sahaswan, District Budaun but the respondent no.3 has not been impleaded as a party by name. More so, the notification for holding Panchayat Elections has been issued, therefore, this Court should not grant any indulgence in the matter and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The procedure in this regard governed by the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called ''the Act 1947) and the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called ''the Rules 1994'). Section 9 of the Act, 1947 deals with the procedure for preparing the electoral roll for each territorial constituency. Sub-section (7) thereof  provides that every person is entitled to be registered as a voter only in one constituency. Sub-section (8) provides that where the State Election Commission is satisfied after making certain enquiry as it may deem fit, whether on an application made to it or on its own motion, that any entry in the electoral roll should be corrected or deleted or that the name of any person entitled to get registered should be added in the electoral roll, it shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and rules and orders made thereunder, correct, delete or add the entry, as the case may be. However, the second proviso thereto provides that no deletion or correction of any entry in respect of any person affecting his interest adversely without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him. Rules, 1994 provide for a detailed procedure. Rule 8 thereof provides for publication of rolls in draft giving wide publicity in the Panchayat area and the copy thereof shall be made available for inspection by the people at large. Rule 9 provides for filing claims for inclusion and exclusion of the names of any person. The objections so filed have to be registered and proper entries are to be made as required under Rule 10. However, Rule 11 reads as under:-

"11. Period for lodging claims and objections.- Every application referred to in Rule 9 or in Rule 10 shall be made within a period of seven days from date of publication of the roll in draft under Rule 8.

Rules 13 and 14 provide for procedure for entertaining objections and Rule 15 mandatorily requires for service of notice after being satisfied, prima facie, regarding the genuineness  of the objections  for inclusion or exclusion of the names. The notice is to be served upon the person along with a copy of the objection and notice is required to be served under sub-rule (3) personally and in default or personal service, shall be served by affixing a copy thereof at the residence. Rule 16 further provides for enquiry into claims and objections. It lays down a procedure for leading the evidence on the issue. Rule 17 provides that any person included inadvertently may be deleted from the electoral roll. Rule 19 provides for final publication of electoral  roll.

The aforesaid Rules provide that immediately after publication of the tentative voter list, objections have to be filed either for exclusion or inclusion of the names and the objections  have to be filed with affidavits, in duplicate, so that the another copy of the objections made be served upon the person whose name is to be deleted from the voter list and that exercise is to be done within seven days from the date of publication of the tentative voter list. After receiving the objections, the person whose name is sought to be excluded from the voter list would have a right to lead evidence in rebuttal of the relief sought by the applicant before the Statutory Authority.

This writ petition has been filed without disclosing as to whether the application for correction/inclusion of the names in the voter list has been filed within limitation as provided under the Rules, 1994. As the material facts have not been pleaded and no factual foundation has been laid down by the petitioner to make the petition maintainable, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition.  The  controversy involved herein has been decided by this Court in Writ Petition No. 40829 of 2005, Mangal Dev & Anr. Vs. The State Election Commission & Ors., vide judgment dated 26.05.2005, and we are of the considered opinion that as per the said decision, this petition itself is not maintainable. This petition is also not maintainable for the reason that the allegations of mala fide have been made against the respondent no.3 without impleading him by name. More so, as the notification for holding the election of Gram Panchayat has already been issued, there is no occasion for this Court to entertain this petition.  It is accordingly dismissed.

28.07.2005

AHA


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.