$~35.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9129/2016 and CM APPL. 36951-52/2016
RAJBEER SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandershekhar, Advocate
versus
STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Sumeet Pushkarna, Standing
Counsel for R-1.
Mr. P.R. Chopra, Advocate for R-2.
Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Advocate with Mr. Rhishabh
Jetley, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 03.10.2016
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for directions to the respondent No.1/State Election Commission, not to finalize and notify the delimitation of Municipal Ward No.072 Bhati, in contravention of Section 9(1)(a) of Delimitation Act, 2002 and further, to finalize and notify the delimitation strictly in accordance with law.
2. Apart from the respondent No.1, the petitioners have also impleaded the Election Commission of India as respondent No.2 and Lt. Governor of Delhi as respondent No.3, who apparently, do not have any role to play in the matter.
3. The averments made in the present petition, particularly, para 35 of the petition are to the effect that though the petitioners have forwarded their W.P.(C) 9129/2016 Page 1 of 2 suggestions to the respondent No.1 after publication of the draft delimitation order, they have an apprehension that the said suggestions are not being examined by the respondent No.1, who is intending to finalize the draft delimitation order in a hurry.
4. Mr. Pushkarna, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, who appears on advance notice, refutes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and states that the respondent No.1 is in receipt of the suggestions submitted by the petitioners and the same shall be duly considered alongwith all other suggestions received after publication of the draft delimitation of Municipal Ward No.072 and only thereafter, shall appropriate orders be passed.
5. In view of the aforesaid assurance given by learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the present petition is disposed of with directions that all the suggestions including those submitted by the petitioners shall be duly considered by the respondent No.1 before passing appropriate orders pursuant to the publication of the draft delimitation of Municipal Ward No.072.
6. Needless to state that while passing the present order, this Court has not examined the merits of the suggestions forwarded by the petitioners to the respondent No.1.
7. The petition n is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J OCTOBER 03, 2016/rkb W.P.(C) 9129/2016 Page 2 of 2