Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1363 (RAJ)

Jagdish Yayawar v. Election Commission of India

2003-09-25

ANIL DEV SINGH, K.K.ACHARYA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition the petitioners seek the following reliefs: "(A) a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to prepare the voter lists and reconstitute the polling booths in accordance with the instructions/directions issued by the respondent Election Commission. (B) That any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners." The petitioners claim that they are bona fide resident of Ladnu. Ladnu is a town which falls within the district of Nagaur. It is a constituency of the State Legislative Assembly. It bears constituency Code No. 193. As per the directions dated June 3, 2002 (Annx. 3) of the Election Commission of India, the District Electoral Officer and the Electoral Registration Officers are required to reconstitute the polling booths and the electoral voter lists. The petitioners aver and allege that the respondents while reconstituting the polling booths have divided many wards of municipal area of Ladnu into 3 or 4 parts. This has been illustrated in the petition by the following table: Ward No. Total Voters Divided into part Part Numbers 04 1039 04 15, 17, 18, 19 05 982 03 7, 15, 16 08 700 02 20, 23 15 1040 05 As per the petitioners the effect of such division is that the voters of one I ward will not be able to cast their votes at the same polling booth and they will have to go to different polling booths to exercise their franchise. The petitioners also allege that in certain areas the voters will have to travel more than 2 Kms. to reach the polling stations which, according to them, is not in s keeping with the directions of the Election Commission of India dated June 3, 2002 (Anx. 3 to the petition). The petitioners also claim that contrary to the directions of the Election Commission Ward Nos. 27 and 29 has more than 1500 voters. in the aforesaid back ground the petitioners have filed the writ petition for the reliefs detailed above. 2. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. 3 to the petition). The petitioners also claim that contrary to the directions of the Election Commission Ward Nos. 27 and 29 has more than 1500 voters. in the aforesaid back ground the petitioners have filed the writ petition for the reliefs detailed above. 2. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that the petitioners can not be aggrieved of any action of the respondents. It is further stated that all the five petitioners are voters of Ladnu constituency and they would cast their votes in the forthcoming elections at the same polling booths which were set up in the is year 1998. It is categorically denied by the respondents that any voter of the constituency will have to cover a distance of more than 2 Kms. for casting his vote. According to the counter affidavit the respondents have complied with the directions of the Election Commission of India dated June 3, 2002 (Anx. 3). 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before us has reiterated the allegations made in the writ petition and has submitted that the third respondent has acted contrary to the directions of the Election Commission dated June 3, 2002. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has denied the allegations levelled in the writ petition on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 4. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be necessary to notice the direction of the Election Commission dated June 3, 2002. According to para 6 thereof, reconstitution of the present polling booths is required when number of voters assigned to any of the booths exceeds 1500 or a voter has to travel a distance of more than 2 Kms. to reach a polling booth. it also provides that in case voters assigned to present polling booth are less in numbers, it can be merged with an other booth. in the counter affidavit it is stated that for none of the booths in the Ladnu municipal area, the number of voters exceeds the -1500 mark. It has also been clarified in the counter affidavit that in the municipal area of Ladnu no voter will have to travel a distance of more than 2 kms. to reach the polling station. in the counter affidavit it is stated that for none of the booths in the Ladnu municipal area, the number of voters exceeds the -1500 mark. It has also been clarified in the counter affidavit that in the municipal area of Ladnu no voter will have to travel a distance of more than 2 kms. to reach the polling station. This being the factual position, the petition has no force at all. The allegation of the petitioners that in Ward Nos. 27 and 29 there are more than 1500 voters is of no consequence A ward may have more than 1500 voters but that does not mean that number of voters for a particular booth will exceed 1500 voters. The petitioners have confused the issue. As already pointed out, according to the directions of the Election Commission dated June 3, 2002 when number of voters assigned to a particular booth exceeds 1500 only in that event exercise for reconstitution of the booths is required to be undertaken. It is not the case of the petitioners that at any of the booths more than 1500 voters will be voting in the forthcoming elections. 5. The other allegation of the petitioners that to reach certain booths the voters will have to travel more than 2 Kms. for casting their votes has been categorically denied by the respondents, both in the counter affidavit to the petition and counter to the rejoinder. The petitioners have not given any specific instance where a voter will have to travel a distance of more than 2 kms. It is merely a bald allegation of the petitioners. The ipsi dixit of the petitioners cannot be accepted. 6. The last grievance of the petitioners that while reconstituting the palling booths the respondents have divided many wards of the municipal area of Ladnu into 3 or 4 parts is also devoid of substance. Para 6 of the directions of the Election Commission deals with booths and not wards. The petitioners are mixing up wards with booths. 6. The last grievance of the petitioners that while reconstituting the palling booths the respondents have divided many wards of the municipal area of Ladnu into 3 or 4 parts is also devoid of substance. Para 6 of the directions of the Election Commission deals with booths and not wards. The petitioners are mixing up wards with booths. Neither the petitioners have been able to establish that the respondents have violated the directions of 10 the Election Commission of India dated June 3, 2002 nor have they been able to show that they or other voters have been hurt by the action of the respondents in implementing the directions of the Election Commission of India.In the circumstances, therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******