Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Devi (Smt.) And 16 Others vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 2 December, 2015
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65435 of 2015
Petitioner :- Kamlesh Devi (Smt.) And 16 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ishwar Chandra Tyagi,Alok Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kaushlesh Pratap Singh
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
By these proceedings, the petitioners have sought to question the vires of the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. The challenge is to the inclusion of the words "and before the completion of that election". The petitioners also seek relief for setting aside the supplementary voters' list whereby their names were deleted and have sought a mandamus to allow them to cast their votes for the ensuing elections of the Gram Panchayat Mukari, Village Madan Khera, Tehsil Dhanoura, District Amroha (J.P. Nagar).
Section 9 of the Act provides for the electoral roll for every territorial constituency of a gram panchayat being prepared under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. The provisions of sub-section 9, inter alia, provide for the preparation, revision and correction of electoral rolls in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 provides for the publication of the electoral roll in the prescribed manner. Under sub-section (3), a person who has attained the age of 18 years on the first day of January of the year in which the electoral roll is prepared or revised and who is ordinarily a resident in the territorial constituency of a gram panchayat is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that territorial constituency. Sub-section (8) of Section 9 is in the following terms:
"(8) Where the [Electoral Registration officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer] is satisfied after making such inquiry as it may deem fit, whether on an application made to it or on its own motion, that any entry in the electoral roll should be corrected or deleted or that the name of any person entitled to get registered should be added in the electoral roll, it shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and rules and orders made thereunder, correct, delete or add the entry, as the case may be:
Provided that no such correction, deletion or addition shall be made after the last date for making nominations for an election in the Gram Panchayat and before the completion of that election:
Provided further that no deletion or correction of any entry in respect of any person affecting his interest adversely shall be made without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him."
Sub-section (8) empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to direct that any entry in the electoral roll should be corrected or deleted or that the name of any person entitled to get registered should be added in the electoral roll. Under the first proviso, it has been stipulated that no such correction, deletion or addition shall be made after the last date for making nomination for an election in the gram panchayat and before the completion of that election. The basis of the petition is that the expression "and before the completion of that election" would seem to indicate that a correction, deletion or addition can be made even after the last date prescribed for making nominations.
We see no substance in this submission. The first proviso has mandated that correction, deletion or addition shall not be made in the electoral roll after the last date for making nomination for an election to the gram panchayat. This provision in the first proviso when read together with the words "and before the completion of that election" would indicate that there are two points of time defining when the prohibition on the making of a correction, deletion or addition commences and when the prohibition comes to an end. The embargo commences upon the last date for making nominations for an election after which no correction, deletion or addition can be made. This embargo continues until the completion of the election. This is also the manner in which the State Election Commission which is represented in these proceedings construes the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9.
The object and purpose of the provision is to ensure that once the election process has attained the stage of the filing of nominations, no further changes should be allowed in the electoral roll until the election is completed. Hence, we see no substance in the constitutional challenge. The right to contest an election is itself subject to statutory regulation and is not a fundamental right. In any event, the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9 has a valid and rational purpose and is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The second and third reliefs which have been sought in these proceedings seek to challenge the supplementary voters' list by which the names of the petitioners were deleted and a mandamus is sought to allow the petitioners to cast their votes. We are unable to grant this relief having due regard to the fact that the election process has commenced. The election process is substantially under way and the voting is to take place on 5 December 2015. Hence, having regard to the well settled parameters of judicial interference in such matters, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Any remedy of the petitioners must lie after the results are declared in accordance with law.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.12.2015
VMA
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.)
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
