Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1973 DIGILAW 329 (KAR)

P. R. SIDDAPPA v. DEPUTY COMMR. , CHIKMAGALUR

1973-11-20

K.VENKATASWAMI

body1973
( 1 ) "by this petition, the order made by the Deputy Commr.-and the Dist. " election Officer Chikmagalur Dist. , in case No. ELN. CR. 256/71-72, has been Challenged. By that order, the Deputy Commr had set aside the order made by the Asst. Commr. and the Electoral Registration Officer, tarikere, in ELN 1 to 3 of 1971-72. The Electoral Registration Officer, purporting to exercise his power under Rule 20 of the Registration of electors Rules, 1960, directed the deletion of the names of respondents 3 to 5 herein from Part 46 of the list of eletors of Tarikere Assembly Constituency. He, however, directed that their names be retained in Part 35 of such roll belonging to Tarikere Town only. ( 2 ) THE lists in question are sought to be corrected by the Electoral Registration officer relating to the Assembly Constituency of Tarikere It is no longer in dispute that the Electoral Lists had been finalised in connection with the last Election to the Assembly and the House of the People, The application of the petitioner for such correction of the Electroal Lists must, therefore, be presumed to be'under Sec,22 of the Representation of the people Act, 1950. That such is the position is not seriouslv challenged before me. Once this conclusion is reached, any order made pursuant to s. 22 of. the said Act is appealable only Under the provisions of S. 24 thereof. ( 3 ) THE said section provides, inter alia that an appeal shall lie within such time and in such manner as may he prescribed to the Chief Electoral officer, from any order of the Electoral Registration Officer under S 22 or s. 23 of the Act. S. 22 of the Act provides for the correction of tho Eletoral rolls by the Electoral Registration Officer for the Constituency on an application made to him, or on his own motion, subject to enquiyv to be held by him. S. 13a provides for the appointment of the Chief Electoral officer in regard to the whole State. Tt follows from this that there can be only 'one Chief Electoral Officer in regard to the State S 13b provides for the appointment of an Electoral Registration Officer It is not in dispute that the Asst. Commr. who made the order in the first instance was : one such officer. Tt follows from this that there can be only 'one Chief Electoral Officer in regard to the State S 13b provides for the appointment of an Electoral Registration Officer It is not in dispute that the Asst. Commr. who made the order in the first instance was : one such officer. The combined effect of all these sections is that any. order made by the Electoral Registration Officer is ,appealable to the chief Electoral Officer as provided under S 24 of the Act. ( 4 ) IN the Instant case, the Deputy Commissioner who is also the District election Officer, cannot be said to be the,chief Electoral Officer and there' fore the appellate authority in respect of the orders made by any Eectoral registration Officer under S 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 Once this position is reached, it is dear that the appeal entertained by the Deputy Commissioner, the order in which is impugned herein, would be clearly incompetent. Indeed, this is the principal contention urged 01: behalf of the petitioner. But :it is contended on behalf of the respondents that no such question had been raised before the Deputy Commissioner when the matter was considered by him on an appeal preferred" bv respondents 3 to 5. In my opinion, this is a matter of not much relevance when it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner's order was totally, devoid of jurisdiction The order is therefore, clearly non est In such a situation, the jurisdiction exercisable by this Court under Art. 226 of the constitution could clearly be invoked. For these reasons, I am clearly of the view that the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be accepted. ( 5 ) THE result of the above discussion is that the order made by the" deputy Commissioner which re impugned herein, deserves to be quashed it is ordered accordingly. It is however to be mentioned that S. 24 in terras enables the respondents 3 to 5 to appeal against the order passed by the electoral Registration Officer to the Chief Electoral Officer, subject to the rules made in that regard. It is open to the respondents 3 to 5 to exercise the right of appeal conferred thereby subject to the Rules framed in that behalf. No costs. --- *** --- .