Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1120 (GAU)

Rajen Deuri v. State of Assam

2016-12-14

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : AJIT SINGH, J. 1. Heard on admission. 2. This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court in WP (C) No. 7376/2016, whereby he has rejected appellants’ prayer for interim relief. 3. The appellants have filed WP (C) No. 7376/2016 challenging the legality and validity of order dated 15.11.2016, whereby certain villages enumerated therein have been excluded from the Constituencies falling within the Deori Autonomous Council. The appellants are residents and voters of the villages, which have been excluded. Admittedly, order dated 15.11.2016 has been passed on the basis of Notification dated 31.7.2010 (not published in Gazette) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, WPT & BC Department. In the writ petition, the appellants have also challenged the validity of Notification dated 31.7.2010. 4. Since the elections are scheduled for 15.12.2016 (tomorrow), the appellants prayed for an interim direction for inclusion of names of the villages in the electoral roll to facilitate the participation of persons residing in such villages in the election process and to enable them to exercise voting rights. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has issued notice of motion returnable on 6.2.2017, but rejected the prayer for interim direction. It is in this background, the appellants have filed the present appeal. 5. While rejecting the prayer for interim relief, the learned Single Judge has observed that detailed examination is required for ascertaining the validity of Notification dated 31.7.2010, which was not possible without hearing the respondents and since the elections were round the corner, interim prayer cannot be granted in the interest of justice. 6. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellants, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The process of election is at the fag end and at this stage, any interim direction would disturb the election process. In the fact situation of the case, we find no good ground to entertain this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed summarily.