Sau. Rekha W/O Santosh Turkar (Ku. ... vs The State Election Commission ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 16468 Bom

                                                       Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 4846 OF 2021

   Sau. Rekha W/o Santosh Turkar
   (Ku. Rekha D/o Baburao Tandekar),
   Aged about 37 years, Occ - Household,
   R/o. At & Post - Deori, Prabhag/Ward               .. Petitioner
   No.9, Tahsil - Deori, District - Gondia -
   441 901

                   Versus

1. The State Election Commission through
   its Commissioner, having Office at New
   Administrative    Building,   Hutatma
   Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama Marg,
   Mumbai - 400 032

2. The Collector, Gondia
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Chief              .. Respondents
   Election Officer, Deori, District-Gondia

4. Nagar Panchayat, Deori, Tahsil - Deori,
   District - Gondia through its Chief
   Executive Officer

5. The Tahsildar, Deori, District - Gondia


Mr. Nitin Jachak, & Mr. S. K. Hatwar, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. N. R. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5.

                            CORAM :            SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                               ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.

DATED : 29/11/2021

PAGE 1 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

Heard Mr.Nitin Jachak, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. J. B. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and

Mr. N. R. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5. There is no

need to issue notice to the respondent No.4, as the issue involved in

this petition would have to be dealt with only by respondent No.1 and

at the most by respondent No.2.

(2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties present before

the Court.

(3) It is pointed out by Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for

the respondent No.1 and Mr.Patil, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 that it would be the provision

made in Section 11 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar

Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to

as 'Act of 1965'), which would govern the issue. According to them,

the electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly prepared

under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950,

PAGE 2 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt

which is authenticated and notified by the State Election

Commissioner, is the list of voters for each ward and in the present

case, the electoral roll prepared for the Maharashtra Legislative

Assembly, has been declared to be the voters' list for the purpose of

Deori Nagar Panchayat as per the notification issued on 01/11/2021

and in this voters' list name of the petitioner having not been included,

now her name cannot be included.

(4) Reliance has been placed upon the view taken by

this Court in a similar case i.e. Firoz Khan Daddu Khan Pathan vs.

State Election Commission and others [ Writ Petition No. 3606 of 2020

decided on 22/12/2020 ].

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the

contentions of Mr. Kasat, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and

Mr. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 are accepted, the

election program as published in the present case (page 22) would lose

significance and the date stated therein for the purpose of finalization

of the voters' list will only be a paper formality.

(6) So far as the law governing the issue is concerned,

PAGE 3 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt

we find that this case having similar facts as the case of Firoz

Khan(supra), is squarely covered by the view taken by this Court in its

Judgment dated 22/12/2020. In that case, Section 12 of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act was interpreted in the light of

Sections 22 and 23 of the Representation of the People Act,1950 and

also Rule 13 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and it was held

that for the purposes of Gram Panchayat Elections, it is only the

electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, which has been

notified and published for the purposes of Gram Panchayat election on

a particular date by the State Election Commissioner is valid. In the

present case, the provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1965 are

substantially similar to those made in Section 12 of the Maharashtra

Village Panchayats Act. For the sake of convenience Section 11 of the

Act of 1965 is reproduced as under :-

"11. Preparation of list of voters. - The electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly prepared under the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, for the time being in force, on such date as the State Election Commissioner may, by general or special order notify, shall be divided by the State Election Commissioner into different sections corresponding to different wards in the municipal area; and a printed copy of each section of the roll so divided and authenticated by the State Election Commissioner or an officer authorised by him, shall be the list of voters for each ward."

PAGE 4 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt

(7) It would be clear that for the purpose of Nagar

Panchayat election, the electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative

Assembly duly notified and published as being the voters' list for the

purposes of Nagar Panchayat elections on a particular date which

would decide the issue involved in the present case. This electoral roll

has been published in the Official Gazette on 01/11/2021 and it did

not include the name of the petitioner in the voters' list for Deori

Nagar Panchayat election. Therefore, now the petitioner cannot

contend that her name has been wrongly deleted and it be included in

the voters' list.

(8) It is true that the election program includes a stage

of finalization of the ward wise voters' list and the date given in that

regard is of 29/11/2021. It must be noted that it is the stage of

finalization of the voters' list as fixed in the election program which is

marked by the date of 29/11/2021. This date is not in relation to the

inclusion or deletion of the names of the voters in the voters' list, but it

is in relation to adjustment of voters in different wards and this is an

operation, termed as "scissors-and-paste" in paragraph 37 of the

judgment rendered in the case of Shri Savio O. Fernandes and another

PAGE 5 OF 6 Judgment in WP No.4846.2021.odt

Vs. State Election Commissioner and others reported in AIR 1996

Bombay 343, which has been followed by this Court in the case of

Firoz Khan (supra) decided on 22/12/2020. That being the purpose of

the date of 29/11/2021, which was fixed for finalization of the ward-

wise voters' list, it cannot be said that the voters' list had not attained

finality, when it was published on 01/11/2021, at least as regards the

inclusion of the names of the voters therein and deletion of the names

of the voters therefrom. The purpose of this petition is of inclusion of

the name of the petitioner in the voters' list, which is not covered by

the purpose for which the ward-wise voters' list was to be finalized, as

per the election program on 29/11/2021.

(9) In the result we find no merit in the petition. The

petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs.

                          [ANIL L. PANSARE J.]                  [ SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.]


               KOLHE




Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
     CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
      Signing Date:01.12.2021
                        10:36
                                                                                     PAGE 6 OF 6