Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1004 (JHR)

Pushpa Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-04

R.R.PRASAD

body2010
Order Extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner by filing a writ application, wherein prayer has been made to direct the Authorities for doing needful in the matter of inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the voter list so that she may participate in the election for Hutpa Panchayat scheduled to be held from 27.11.2010 and until and unless that is done, the respondent-Authority be restrained from holding election for said Panchayat, falling within the district of Hazaribagh. 2. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is a resident of Village-Banhappa, whose name was there in the voter list, prepared for assembly election in Hazaribagh constituency but when the draft voter list was prepared for Panchayat election, petitioner's name was not included in the voter list of Hutpa Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner submitted her application for inclusion for her name in the draft voter list but nothing was done in this respect and, therefore, a representation was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Election Officer (Panchayat), Hazaribagh on 23.10.2010 but nothing was done for redressal of her grievance and, therefore, the petitioner has come to this Court for redressal of her grievance as on account of her name being not there in the voter list, she would not be allowed to file nomination for contesting Panchayat election. 3. Learned Advocate General submits that once the election process got started, any dispute relating to election or process of election can be raised only by way of election petition and hence, instant application being not maintainable is fit to be dismissed. 4. However, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission submits that in fact the petitioner had never submitted her objection when the draft voter list was published and, therefore, any statement made on behalf of the petitioner, that on publication of the voter list objection was filed, is false. 5. 4. However, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel appearing for the State Election Commission submits that in fact the petitioner had never submitted her objection when the draft voter list was published and, therefore, any statement made on behalf of the petitioner, that on publication of the voter list objection was filed, is false. 5. Be that as it may, there has been no denying of the fact that the election of Gram Panchayat is going to be held in the month of November, 2010 after more than 30 years, whereas according to the constitutional mandate, it has to be held regularly and, therefore, if holding of election is allowed to be stalled on the complaint of few individuals then grave injustice will be done to the thousands and thousands of people who have the right to elect their representatives to Gram Panchayat. In this context, I may refer to a decision in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman [(1985)4 S.C.C. 689], wherein it has been held as follows:- "........the fact that certain claims and objections are not finally disposed of, even assuming that they are filed in accordance with law, cannot arrest the process of election to the legislature and the election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date for making nominations." 6. The aforesaid view expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court got its approval also in a case of Kishansing Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad and Others [ (2006) 8 S.C.C. 352 ]. 7. Moreover, petitioner's prayer cannot be acceded to in view of the bar enunciated in Article 243-O of the Constitution of India, which reads as follows:- "243-O. Bar to interfere by courts in electoral matters-Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." 8. Thus, keeping in view the bar imposed under the aforesaid article, the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be invoked to stall the election process. 9. The similar proposition in context of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India which is in pari materia to Article 243-0 has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case of Anugrah Narain Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others [ (1996)6 S.C.C. 303 ] by holding that in view of the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be invoked to stall the election process. 10. Keeping in view all these aspects of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ application and hence, this writ application is dismissed.