Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 357 (MP)

Dilip Kaushal v. State Election Commission

2021-03-12

VIVEK RUSIA

body2021
ORDER Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 1. The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition No. 5741/2021 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the final voter list published by the respondents for the upcoming Municipalities Elections. 2. Facts of the case in short are:- (i) The petitioners are residents and electorate of the district Indore. The State Election Commission vide letter dated 04.1.2021 has issued program and process of Annual Revision 2021 of Photo Electoral Roll for Municipalities Elections to the Collector and District Election Officer of all the districts. (ii) As per the aforesaid program, the direction was issued to initiate the process for revision of the voter list under the provisions of section 14 of M.P. Nagarpalika Nigam Adhiniyam, 1956 and section 32 of Municipal Corporation Act, 1961 and rule 8 of M.P. Nagarpalika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules of 1994'). The program for revision of the voter list for Annual Revision 2021 is annexed as Annexure—P/2. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, respondent no.3 to 9 published a draft of voter list 2021 and invited the claims and the objections as per rule 5 of the Rules of 1994. Petitioner No.1 submitted claims and objections before the respondent on 15.2.2021 at 1:20 p.m. objecting to the inclusion of about names of 125000 ineligible voters and demanded the exclusion of their names in the final publication of the voter list. According to the petitioners, respondent no.3 had passed an order dated 31.7.2020 directing his subordinate officer to scrutinize the list of eligible persons to get the benefit under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and under ‘One Ration One Card’ policy. After conducting a detailed survey and physical verification in Indore city a list of eligible persons were declared and published in the portal of M.P. State Food Security Department. According to the petitioners, those 1,25,000 names are not showing in the said list as they have left Indore city but still their names are being included in the draft voter list 2021 of upcoming Municipalities Elections. (iii) The petitioners have also made an online complaint to the Election Commission of India and in turn, which was forwarded with the directions to respondents No.3 to decide the objections and the representation submitted by the petitioners. (iii) The petitioners have also made an online complaint to the Election Commission of India and in turn, which was forwarded with the directions to respondents No.3 to decide the objections and the representation submitted by the petitioners. According to the petitioners despite the aforesaid directions the respondent No.3 to 9 have not decided the claims and objections and the representation submitted by the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.5014/2021 seeking directions against the respondents to decide the objections dated 15.2.2021. The said writ petition came up for hearing before this Court on 02.3.2021 and the Addl. Advocate General informed the Court that objection submitted by the petitioners has been decided to vide letter dated 24.2.2021 and the copy of the order has been sent to the petitioners. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, this Court has disposed of the writ petition. According to the petitioner vide communication dated 24.2.2021 none of the objections has been decided and the final voter list has been published without deleting the name of 125000 ineligible voters hence, the petitioner have filed this petition as well as review petition seeking review of the order dated 2.3.2021 passed in Writ Petition No 5014/2021. 3. Shri Vibhor Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after detailed enquiry and investigation the respondents had concluded that 125000 persons are not residing in Indore city then.their names ought not to have been included in the draft voter list. The authorities are duty-bound to publish the final voter list after following the due process in accordance with the provisions of rules 3, 4 , 5 and 6 of the Rules of 1994. The objections submitted by the petitioner have not been decided in accordance with the law and the same was not duly communicated to the petitioners otherwise they could have preferred an appeal under rule 9 of the Rules of 1994. Hence the entire voter list may be quashed with the direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh as per the Rules 3,4,5,and 6 of the Rules of 1994. 4. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that all the objections taken by the petitioners have duly considered and rejected vide order dated 24.02.2021. Hence the entire voter list may be quashed with the direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh as per the Rules 3,4,5,and 6 of the Rules of 1994. 4. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that all the objections taken by the petitioners have duly considered and rejected vide order dated 24.02.2021. The petitioners have raised objections by way of representation whereas as per the circular dated 27.8.2009 issued by the Election Commission of India the objections ought to have been submitted in a prescribed format in respect of individual voters. The format is available on the official website of the M.P. State Election Commission. The petitioner has submitted an objection in the form of representation in respect of 125000 voters who were not found eligible for the benefit of the ‘One Ration One Card’ scheme therefore, their names were not included the said list but that does not mean that they are not eligible to vote in the Municipal election. The eligibility criteria for getting a Ration Card is different than eligibility to become a voter hence the objections submitted by the petitioner were misconceived not tenable and hence rightly been rejected vide order dated 24.02.2021. Once the voter list has become final it cannot be set aside in the writ petition. The petitioner is having a remedy to challenge the election to be held on the said voter list by way of Election Petition in accordance with the law hence the petition be dismissed. Shri Aren has supported the arguments of the learned Addl. Advocate General. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Chapter 2 of the Rules of 1994 deals with the list of voters. rule 3 of the Rules of 1994 deals with the preparation of the voter list and the appointment of registration of the officer. Rules 4 of the rule of 1994 deals with the publication of the voter list for inviting claims and objections and as per rule 1 of the Rules of 1994 as soon as the voter list is ready the registration officer shall give a public notice inviting claim for inclusion of name in the list and objections of any entry therein by displaying a notice in a form as may be prescribed. rules 5 of the Rules of 1994 provides that any persons whose name is not entered in the voter list or entered at the incorrect place or at in the correct particular may submit an objection. It further provides that any person whose name is entered in the list and who objects to the inclusion of his own name or the name of any other persons in the list may prefer claim or objections by delivering to the registration officer and application in writing duly signed by him. 6. The Election Commission has prescribed a form for submission of objections. The same format provides the space for the opinion to be given by the prescribed authority and space for the passing of the order by the registration authority. 6. The Election Commission has prescribed a form for submission of objections. The same format provides the space for the opinion to be given by the prescribed authority and space for the passing of the order by the registration authority. The format is reproduced as under:- e/; Áns'k jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx gj oksV dherh] gj fudk; egRoiw.kZ uxjikfydk fuokZpu ernkrk lwph esa lfEefyr uke ij jftLVªhdj.k vf/kdkjh dks vkifRr&vkosnu ¼fu;e 5¼2½ ds varxZr jkT; fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk fofgr Ák:i bvkj&2½ ernkrk dk fooj.k ftldk uke ernkrk lwph esa lfEefyr gksus ij vkifRr gSA ftyk uxj ikfydk dk uke uxj ikfydk dk okMZ Øekad okMZ dk uke ernkrk dk uke Hkkx la[;k ernkrk Øekad vkifRrdrkZ dk ernkrk lEca/kh ,oa vU; fooj.k ftyk uke firk@ifr dk uke irk okMZ Øekad Hkkx la[;k ernkrk Øekad eksckbZy uEcj vkifRr dk vk/kkj ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- eSa ?kks"k.kk djrk@djrk gaw fd Åij of.kZr rF; esjs loksZRre Kku vkSj fo'okl ds vuqlkj lR; gS%& LFkku------------------------------- rkjh[k----------------------------- vkifRrdrkZ ds gLrk{kj ;k vaxwBs ds fu'kku ikorh lquokbZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr rkjh[k ÁLrqr vkosnu ij lquokbZ rkjh[k dh lwpuk ÁkIr gqbZ rkjh[k----------------------------- gLrk{kj ;k vaxwBs ds fu'kku ¼ÁLrqrdrkZ½ dk;kZy;hu mi;ksx ds fy, Ákf/kd`r deZpkjh dh Vhe 1- ekeys esa vkosnd dks lquokbZ ds fy, rkjh[k-------------dks Ákr% 10%30 cts jftLVªhdj.k@lgk;d jftLVªhdj.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k mifLFkr jgus ds fy, lwfpr fd;k x;k gSA 2- ÁkjafHkd tkap&iM+rky ds vk/kkj ij esjh fjiksVZ fuEukuqlkj gS%& ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- rkjh[k----------------------------- gLrk{kj Ákf/kd`r deZpkjh uke----------------------------------------- okMZ Øekad----------------------------- uxj ikfydk-------------------------- ftyk--------------------------------------- vkosnu ds lEca/k esa ikfjr vkns'k vkns'k Øekad------------------------------ rkjh[k------------------------------------------ Jh@Jherh@dqekjh--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- }kjk bvkj&2 esa ÁLrqr vkifRr dks %& ¼d½ Lohdkj dj fy;k x;k gS vkSj mDr uxj dh ernkrk lwph ds okMZ Øekad-------------------ds Hkkx la[;k------------------------------esa ernkrk Øekad-----------------------------ij mYysf[kr Jh@Jherh@dqekjh--------------------------- ds uke dks foyksfir dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼[k½ fuEufyf[kr dkj.k ls ukeatwj dj fn;k x;k gS%& ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- eksgj gLrk{kj jftLVªhdj.k vf/kdkjh uxjikfydk------------------------------------------- ftyk------------------------------------------------------ 7. In the present case, the petitioners being an office-bearer of M.P. Congress Committee have submitted objections about the inclusion of names of 125000 voters in the provisional voter list. If the name of the voter is liable to be removed then the same can be done only after issuance of notice to him or her. Since the petitioners did not submit objections in the prescribed format, therefore, no notice could be issued to the alleged ineligible voters. If the name of the voter is liable to be removed then the same can be done only after issuance of notice to him or her. Since the petitioners did not submit objections in the prescribed format, therefore, no notice could be issued to the alleged ineligible voters. The names of 125000 so-called ineligible voters cannot be removed only by submitting a representation on a letterhead of the political party. 8. According to the petitioners vide order dated 31.7.2020 the Collector has directed to conduct a survey and prepare a list of eligible families under the ‘One National One Card’. The criteria and the eligibility to get the said benefit is altogether different than the standards to become the voter under the M.P. Nirvachan Rules 1994. If anyone is not found eligible to get the benefit of One National One Card scheme it does not mean that he cannot be the voter or he has become ineligible to cast vote, therefore, objections raised by the petitioner are baseless. 9. The registration authority has rightly dismissed the claims and objections submitted by the petitioners under sub-rule (5) of rule 6 of the Rules of 1994 which provides the remedy to appeal to the appellate authorities within a period of five days. Instead of appealing the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition, as well as review petition sans merits and both, are hereby dismissed.