Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Nimba Patil vs The State Election Commissioner ... on 18 October, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:25572-DB
wp-1123-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11123 OF 2024
Chandrakant s/o Nimba Patil
Age: 51 years, Member of Legislative
Assembly Muktainagar Constituency,
R/o Near ICICI Bank, Bhusawal Road,
Tq. Muktainagar,
District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Election Commission,
Through The Chief Election Commissioner,
First Floor, New Administrative
Building, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400032.
2. The Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Madam Cama Road, 5th Floor,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
3. The District Electoral Officer
And The District Collector,
Jalgaon.
4. The Electoral Registration Officer,
Muktainagar Legislative Assembly
Constituency, Taluka Muktainagar,
District Jalgaon.
5. The Election Commission of India,
Through the Election Commissioner,
Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi, Through Standing Counsel. .. Respondents
[1]
wp-1123-2024.odt
...
Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Amol R. Joshi,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. B. Kadethankar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 16th OCTOBER 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th OCTOBER 2024
JUDGMENT [Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.]
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the
parties.
2. The petitioner is invoking constitutional powers of this
Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and
seeks writ of mandamus against the respondents to consider his
representations dated 02.08.2024, 16.08.2024, 20.08.2024,
29.08.2024 and 20.09.2024 addressed to them to identify, verify
and remove names of voters those are registered in voter's list for
more than one occasion/time. He also seeks writ of mandamus
to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to provide adequate
infrastructure to election machinery at district level to identify,
wp-1123-2024.odt
verify and remove names of voters, whose names have been
registered in the voter's list on more than one occasion/time.
3. The petitioner is a Member of Legislative Assembly,
Maharashtra State, who has been duly elected from Muktainagar
Constituency in District Jalgaon. The elections for the Legislative
Assembly for the State of Maharashtra are scheduled by the end
of 2024. The Election Commission of India has notified the
schedule of revision of Electoral Roll. Respondent No.2 made
request to the Election Commission of India by letter dated
01.08.2024 for revision of Electoral Roll with 01.07.2024 as
qualifying date. On 02.08.2024, the petitioner had submitted
representation to respondent No.3 thereby bringing it to the
notice of respondent No.3 that several persons, whose names
were already appearing in the voters list, are again registered.
This action is to give effect to bogus voting and defeat the election
exercise. In the said representation, a specific prayer was made
that every voter, whose name is to be recorded in voters list, be
recorded after verifying the fact that the name of such voter is
already recorded in the voters list or not. He prayed for deputing
Government servants to undertake the said task of identifying
duplication of names of the voters. The said representation has
wp-1123-2024.odt
been given to various authorities on the same day. Respondent
No.1 had then forwarded the said letter/representation by the
petitioner to respondent No.2 for further action. An E-mail was
given to respondent No.3 on 17.08.2024 whereby the petitioner
submitted specific objection to draft Electoral Roll along with
evidence providing the manner in which names of individuals
have been duplicated. According to the petitioner, there are about
43 thousand names of the persons in the list, whose duplication
has been effected or is in existence. Petitioner also submitted the
objection to the draft electoral list on 20.08.2024 to respondent
No.4. Once again objection was raised on 29.08.2024 and in
September 2024 also. Respondent No.4 had organized a
Committee wherein it was expressed that in the event of
availability of infrastructure, namely, DSE/PSE TAB and old
voters search portal by respondent Nos.1 to 3; respondent No.4
would be in a position to take steps to ascertain and verify
repeated inclusion of names of the individuals in the voters list.
However, thereafter the petitioner has not received any response.
One more letter was addressed by the petitioner praying that his
objection be considered and necessary steps be taken. As no
actions have been taken, the petitioner has filed the present
wp-1123-2024.odt
petition.
4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 by
Mr. Girish Rameshwar Wakhare, Tahsildar Muktainagar, District
Jalgaon in the capacity as Assistant Electoral Registration Officer,
Muktainagar Assembly Constituency, District Jalgaon. He has
stated that the Election Commission of India is duty bound to
hold free and fair elections and right to vote is a statutory right.
Such right cannot be denied to any elector by merely filing a
complaint. The Election Commission of India has put a very
sturdy mechanism to ensure that the right to vote is exercised by
each and every eligible citizen. It is stated that when the
petitioner had given complaint raising objection that 43,276
electors names appear more than once, the Electoral Registration
Officer (for short "ERO") made a request to the petitioner to give
full details in Form 7. The details given by the petitioner in his so
called representation is incomplete and, therefore, it is difficult to
verify. The list provided by the petitioner is without the photo of
the voter, where he raises the question of duplicate names. The
information has to be provided by an individual thereby raising
objection in respect of appearance of the name of a particular
voter by filing Form 7, then only ERO can take up the matter
wp-1123-2024.odt
further. If the ERO comes to the conclusion that there is
substance in the submission or objection, then only the multiple
entries of the same elector can be deleted. The procedure laid
down has to be undergone before the final action is taken. The
affiant has given the procedure that is required to be followed for
raising objection. In the nutshell, he says that unless those
objections would have been taken against individual person by
filing appropriate form, the ERO was not in a position to decide
the said dispute. He further submits that the Election
Commission of India had conducted a drive to verify
Demographically Similar Entries (DSE) and the Photo Similar
Entries (PSE). The said exercise has been carried out throughout
the country including Muktainagar Assembly Constituency.
District Election Officer and ERO had arranged a meeting with all
political parties. Those meetings were held on 09.01.2024,
05.07.2024 and 20.07.2024. In the said meetings, the political
parties were apprised about the procedure followed for updation,
formation of polling booths and to conduct the elections as per
the procedure. When proper objection was not filed, there was no
question of taking action. Respondent No.4 had given
letter/decision by bringing to the notice of the petitioner as to
wp-1123-2024.odt
how the actions have been taken and under which provisions of
law, copy of the same is served upon his authorized person. No
appeal appears to have been preferred. The affiant clearly says
that he has followed the handbook for Returning Officers wherein
it has been specifically guided that no suo moto deletion shall be
done in an election year. Respondent No.4 has given an
assurance that there shall not be bogus voting. ERO would revise
the Electoral Roll based on the objection raised as per the Form 7
till date of announcement of election. He reiterates that even
personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 04.09.2024 and
the legal position was apprised to him. The petitioner ought to
have made an application for deletion of those 43,246 names by
filling Form 7 i.e. for each of the elector. He therefore prays that
the petition should be dismissed.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh
instructed by learned Advocate Mr. Amol R. Joshi for the
petitioner, learned Advocate Mr. A. B. Kadethankar for
respondent No.1 and learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal
instructed by learned Advocate Mr. Alok Sharma for respondent
Nos.2 to 5.
wp-1123-2024.odt
6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. R. S. Deshmukh appearing for
the petitioner has taken us through the schedule of summary
revision of Electoral Roll as undertaken by the Election
Commission of India with the Chief Electoral Officer,
Maharashtra by letter dated 01.08.2024 which was followed by
the representations by the petitioner to various authorities, who
are respondents here. It is submitted that in each representation
it was pointed out that there is duplication of names of many
electors/voters, whose names are appearing in the voters list and
it is in fact a big scam. He had also represented that instead of
getting the work done through BLO, it should be assigned to the
Government servants. Though personal hearing was given on
29.08.2024, yet the decision has not been made known to the
petitioner and in view of some decision which has been annexed
along with the reply, the petitioner says that he has not received
the copy of the said communication. Learned Senior Counsel
submits that it is the bounden duty of the respondent No.1 that
the election should be held in free atmosphere and should be fair.
By pointing out Rules 10 to 26 of the Registration of Electors
Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the "Electors Rules"), he
submits that when the objections have been raised, they will have
wp-1123-2024.odt
to be decided and it cannot lie in the mouth of respondent Nos.3
and 4 that objection raised in respect of so many persons should
be in Form 7. None of the objections/representations have been
properly answered by ERO. He relies on the decision in
Shyamdeo Prasad Singh Vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav, [(2000)
Supp. 2 SCR 668], wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court that the ERO is not justified in sitting over the objections
received to the Draft Electoral Roll on ground of unavailability of
time. Inclusion of person or persons in the Electoral Roll by an
authority empowered in law to prepare the electoral rolls though
they were not qualified to be so enrolled cannot be a ground for
setting aside of an election of returned candidate and therefore,
every precaution will have to be taken. Stress has been given by
the learned Senior Counsel on Section 62 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of
1950") and the observation in respect of the same in Shyamdeo
Prasad Singh (Supra), wherein it is held that "Section 62 can
clearly be divided into two parts. One part is sub-section (1)
which is couched partly in positive form and partly in the
negative. A person who is not entered in the electoral roll of any
constituency is not entitled to vote in that constituency though he
wp-1123-2024.odt
may be qualified under the Constitution and the law to exercise
the right to franchise. To be entitled to cast a ballot the person
should be entered in the electoral roll. Once a person is so
entered he is entitled to vote in that constituency. .....The other
part of Section 62 consists of sub-sections (2) to (5). In spite of a
person having been entered into an electoral roll and by virtue of
such entry having been conferred with a right to vote, such right
may yet be defeated by existence of any of the disqualifications or
ineligibilities enacted by sub-sections (2) to (5)." Learned Senior
Counsel further relies on the Constitution Bench decision in
Indrajit Barua and others Etc. Vs. Election Commission of
India and others, ([1985] Supp. 3 SCR 225], wherein it has
been held that preparation of Electoral Rolls is not a process of
election and reliance was placed on the decision in Laxmi
Charan Sen and others Vs. A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman and
others, [AIR 1985 SC 1233], wherein it has been held that it
may be difficult consistently with that view, to hold that
preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a part of the 'election'
within the meaning of Article 329(b). Thereby learned Senior
Counsel submits that still in view of the development during the
pendency of the writ petition that the elections have been
wp-1123-2024.odt
declared i.e. scheduled to be held on 20.11.2024, yet till the
nomination papers are filled in i.e. 04.11.2024, the Election
Commission can be asked to revise the Electoral Roll. Further
reliance has been placed on the decision in Baidyanath Panjiar
Vs. Sitaram Mahto and others, ([1970] 1 SCR 839), wherein it
has been held that "Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 is mandatory
in nature that prescribes when amendment cannot be made to
Electoral Roll, it does not set out any mode or procedure
regarding registration of voter. He further relies on the decision
in Lal Babu Hussein and others Vs. Electoral Registration
Officer and others, ([1995] 1 SCR 877). While disposing of the
matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given various directions
in respect of revision of, deletion of names already on rolls,
however, it can be seen that those are mainly taking into
consideration the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Rules made
thereunder. He lastly relied on the decision in P. T. Ranjan Vs.
T. P. M. Sahir and others, ([2003] Supp. 4 SCR 84], wherein it
has been reiterated that Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 is
mandatory in nature. It has been observed that the Electors
Rules does not prescribe when formal publication of Electoral Roll
be made.
wp-1123-2024.odt
7. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. D. Sapkal
appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5, after relying upon the
affidavit-in-reply, submits that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have
followed the rules. Rule 13 of the Electors Rules specifically
prescribes in sub-rule (1) that the inclusion of name of a person
as new elector shall be in Form No.6 and signed by the applicant.
Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 13 prescribes that every objection to the
inclusion of a name in the roll shall be in Form 7 and preferred
only by a person whose name is already included in that roll.
Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 provides that every objection to a
particular or particulars in an entry in the roll shall be in Form 8
and shall be preferred only by the person to whom that entry
relates. Rule 14 prescribes for manner of lodging claims and
objections and Rule 15 lays down the procedure of designated
officers. Rule 17 prescribes that any claim or objection which is
not lodged within the period, or in the form and manner, herein
specified, shall be rejected by the registration officer. Admittedly,
the petitioner has not filed Form 7 in respect of those persons
whose names according to him have been duplicated. Rule 17
gives no discretion to the registration officer when the objection is
not in form. In fact, even personal hearing is not even
wp-1123-2024.odt
contemplated, but still respondent No.4 gave it and apprised the
petitioner about the legal position. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 were
following the Handbook for Returning Officer 2023, paragraph
No.11.3.2(ii), to deal with manner of lodging claims and
objections in respect of bulk applications. It is specifically laid
down as guideline by the Election Commission of India that the
authorized officers should only accept individual applications.
Claims and objections, presented in bulk, by any
individual/organization should not be entertained. Therefore,
when the petitioner wanted to file bulk objections or a single page
application, but in respect of more than 43 thousand persons
without filling Form 7, then respondent Nos.3 and 4 were
justified in not taking any action. When the statutory authority
is following the rules laid down, then writ of mandamus cannot
be issued. He places relies on the decision of this Court in
Mahendra Bapusaheb Gund Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others, [Writ Petition No.6706 of 2022 decided by this
Court on 04.07.2022]. Though it was a case of village panchayat
election, it was held that even the incomplete Form 7 cannot be
looked into by the Electoral Officer. He, therefore, prayed for the
dismissal of the writ petition.
wp-1123-2024.odt
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has
submitted that the guidelines in the form of handbook are the
administrative directions and that cannot be taken as steps in
not following the rules. When the petitioner has raised the
objection within the stipulated period as per the schedule and
pointed out that the duplication of names is in respect of around
43 thousand electors, then respondent Nos.3 and 4 should not
insist that those objections should be in Form 7.
9. The first and the foremost fact that is required to be noted is
that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are accepting that the petitioner had
submitted the objection i.e. the one page objection stating that
there are duplication of entries in respect of many voters. The
duplication is in respect of name, which has been shown in
different wards and also upon different voter ID. That means he
wanted to say that many voters have taken more than one voter
card and as a result of which, there is duplication of their names.
He also says that in respect of certain voters, though the names
of such voters str appearing in Muktainagar Constituency, but
they have changed their residence may be at Dombivali, Mumbai,
Pune etc. The petitioner had prepared list of about 43,276 entries
which has also been made available to the respondents as well as
wp-1123-2024.odt
this Court running in more than 100 pages. Of course it does
not contain the photographs in view of the fact that it has been
prepared by him. From the affidavit-in-reply, we can get that the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 are not denying the said fact completely,
however, they are specifically on the procedure. The letter which
was issued by respondent No.4 to respondent No.3 on 30.08.2024
depicts that the said list was given by the petitioner to respondent
No.4 and according to respondent No.4, if DSE/PSE TAB and old
voter search portal is made available by Election Commission of
India, then the duplication can be identified in other wards.
Such task may be within reach, but the question is whether it
can be made on the basis of the objection raised by the petitioner
that too when there are rules in existence. We would like to
consider Rule 21A of the Electors Rules, which reads thus :-
"21A. If it appears to the registration officer at
any time before the final publication of the roll
that owing to inadvertence or error or otherwise,
the names of dead persons or of persons who
have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily
residents in the constituency or of persons who
are otherwise not entitled to be registered in that
roll, have been included in the roll and that
remedial action should be taken under this rule,
wp-1123-2024.odt
the registration officer, shall--
(a) prepare a list of the names and other details
of such electors;
(b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a
copy of the list together with a notice as to the
time and place at which the question of deletion
of these names from the roll will be considered,
and also publish the list and the notice in such
other manner as he may think fit; and
(c) after considering any verbal or written
objections that may be preferred, decide whether
all or any of the names should be deleted from
the roll:
Provided that before taking any action under
this rule in respect of any person on the ground
that he has ceased to be, or is not, ordinarily
resident in the constituency, or is otherwise not
entitled to be registered in that roll, the
registration officer shall make every endeavour
to give him a reasonable opportunity to show
cause why the action proposed should not be
taken in relation to him.]"
10. Perusal of this rule therefore would indicate that such
power can be exercised suo moto also in respect of those entries
which are the outcome of inadvertence or error or otherwise when
wp-1123-2024.odt
the names of dead persons or of persons who have ceased to be,
or are not, ordinarily residents in the constituency or of persons
who are otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll. This
rule will have to be read with Section 17 of the Act of 1950, which
provides that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the
Electoral Roll for more than one constituency. Section 18 of the
said Act of 1950 provides that no person shall be entitled to be
registered in the Electoral Roll for any constituency more than
once.
11. The Election Commission of India is a constitutional body
created under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. It is an
independent body for conducting elections to the parliament and
legislative bodies. Article 324 of the Constitution of India
prescribes the duties of the Election Commission of India, which
specifically include an obligation to ensure that elections
conducted through it/by it, are free, fair and are true reflections
of the will of the voters. Thus, even in respect of suo moto action
that can be taken under Rule 21A of the Electors Rules, proviso
puts a condition to issue show-cause notice and hear the person
against whom any action under the rule is proposed.
wp-1123-2024.odt
12. Those rules of Electors Rules have been framed which
channelize the registration of the electors. The various stages are
taken into consideration and thereupon, how a person can get his
name registered, when his name can be deleted, when objection
can be taken and how the objections and claims are required to
be handled, are regulated under these rules. Rule 13(2) of the
Electors Rules specifically deals with deletion of name from the
existing roll and it says that every objection for such action shall
be in Form 7 and preferred by a person whose name is in such
roll. This rule will have to be read along with Rule 17 of the
Electors Rules which prescribes that any claim or objection which
is not lodged in the form and manner specified, then it shall be
rejected by registration officer. Here, admittedly, objection raised
by the petitioner was in bulk or in respect of bulk entries and not
annexed with Form 7. Together with these two rules i.e. Rule 13
and Rule 17, we will have to consider the Handbook for Returning
Officer. Periodically the Election Commission of India issues such
Handbook for Returning Officer and the latest is the Handbook of
2023. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner raised point
that handbook is the administrative directions or guidelines,
however, we do not agree to the same. This point is not res
wp-1123-2024.odt
integra. In Arikala Narasa Reddy Vs. Venkata Ram Reddy
Reddygari and Ors., [AIR 2014 SC 1290 :: 2014 (5) SCC 312],
taking into consideration the earlier decisions, it has been
observed that :-
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that the
instructions contained in the handbook for
Returning Officer are issued by the Election
Commission in exercise of its statutory functions
and are therefore, binding on the Returning
Officers. Such a view stands fortified by various
judgments of this Court in Ram Sukh v. Dinesh
Aggarwal, AIR 2010 SC 1227; and Uttamrao
Shivdas Jankar v. Ranjitsinh Vijaysinh Mohite
Patil, AIR 2009 SC 2975. Instruction 16 of the
Handbook deals with cases as to when the ballot is
not to be rejected. The Returning Officers are bound
by the Rules and such instructions in counting the
ballot as has been done in this case."
In that case instruction 16 of handbook was in question,
but here, the reliance is placed on instruction 11.3.2, which
reads thus :-
"11.3.2 Manner of lodging claims & objections:-
(i) Rule 14 of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
provides that every claim or objection shall either
wp-1123-2024.odt
be presented to Electoral Registration Officer or to
such other officer as may be designated by him, or
be sent by post to the Electoral Registration Officer,
or be submitted electronically to the Electoral
Registration Officer. For this purpose, each Booth
Level Officer shall be designated as the Designated
Officer to manage the designated location during
the period for lodging claims & objections. They
shall be given adequate number of printed copies of
blank application forms for distribution to the
applicants. They should be fully clearly informed
that no fee shall be charged for any application
form. The objective is to facilitate the lodging of
claims & objections in all parts of the constituency
including the rural, difficult and inaccessible areas.
(ii) No bulk application shall be received: The
authorized officers should only accept individual
applications. Claims & objections, presented in
bulk, by any individual/organization should not be
entertained. The same principle will be applicable
to claims & objections sent in bulk by post. 'Bulk
application' would mean applications that are
submitted by one person on behalf of many other
persons not belonging to the same family.
Applications put in one and the same envelop also
constitute bulk application. However, individual
applications relating to the members of the same
wp-1123-2024.odt
household, i.e. same family, presented together,
may be accepted. The Election Commission has
also made some relaxation in this matter and
allowed Booth Level Agents of political parties to
file applications, not exceeding 10, in a day. The
Booth Level Agent concerned shall submit such
applications along with a written declaration in
format and list of applications. Electoral
Registration Officer/ Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer shall make the cross
verification personally in case a Booth Level Agent
submits more than 30 applications during the
period of summary revision."
13. The further instructions are in respect of how those
objections/claims are to be decided. Instruction No.1.7.1 says
that after final publication of rolls, no suo moto deletion shall be
done in an election year. Deletion can be done only on the basis
of Form 7 or on the basis of a request of deletion made by the
concerned elector in duplication part of Form 8. Instruction
No.1.7.2 says that Forms 7 and 8 received till the date of
announcement of election will be taken up for disposal by the
ERO concerned after expiry of the prescribed 7 days' notice
period. That means, Form 7 and 8 received till the date of
announcement of election would be processed as per due
wp-1123-2024.odt
procedure till the 10th day from the date of announcement.
Forms 7 and 8 received after the announcement of election would
be kept separately and shall be taken up for disposal only after
completion of election. When these instructions are clear and
insisting that each objection should be in Form 7, then if such
procedure is not adhered to, no directions can be given to the
Election Commission. Certainly, when the statutory authority
has insisted for adherence of procedure/instructions, then writ of
mandamus cannot be issued by taking note of the practical
difficulty of the objector. At the cost of repetition, we say that the
insistence of respondent No.4 for Form 7 is perfectly legal. Such
decision was communicated to the authorized person or the
person who was available in the office of the petitioner at
Muktainagar office on 23.09.2024, of which acknowledgment has
been produced on record, which was the sufficient indication by
respondent No.4 that unless there would have been a compliance,
the said objection will not be entertained.
14. One more fact to be noted from the said communication
dated 23.09.2024 that it was specifically stated to the petitioner
that he has a right to file appeal against the said decision under
Rule 23 of the Electors Rules. Petitioner appears to have not
wp-1123-2024.odt
approached the appellate authority, but directly came to this
Court by invoking the constitutional powers. When a specific
provision has been made for appeal, then before knocking the
doors of the constitutional Court, the said remedy which is a
statutory remedy should be exhausted. On this ground also, we
are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be rejected. The
ratio laid down in the decisions relied by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner are definitely required to be taken into
consideration, however, the first fact is that almost each of them
are dealing with the situation after the elections are over and
secondly, the election commission is accepting its duty to conduct
the elections in free and fair atmosphere.
15. We have observed that the insistence of the forms by
respondent No.4 and also in the rules and instructions, is
justified. Those forms have been created with specific intention
and now, in view of digitization, everything would be then
included in electronic form at one place. This would be easy for
the respondents in conducting the elections. The officer filing the
affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 has in fact assured
that still the upcoming elections would be held fairly and in free
atmosphere. We hope and trust that some module would be
wp-1123-2024.odt
developed by the respondents so that bogus voting can be
avoided.
16. We are also considering one more aspect that since the
elections have been declared, now it will not be possible taking
into consideration the huge number only from one constituency
that the election commission would be in a position to correct the
electoral roll by taking suo moto action under Rule 21A of the
Electors Rules. But before we part, we will have to observe that
certainly there is substance in what the petitioner is saying from
the list that has been given by him. Some persons have obtained
two or more election cards i.e. ID cards which is certainly
offensive. Those persons who have migrated or shifted, their case
is different and it has to be by rules or even in respect of those
persons, who are dead, the procedure has to be adopted. But
when it comes to obtaining second ID card, when already the
previous is in existence in respect of the same address and ward,
then such entries are capable of being corrected. We hope and
trust that at some point of time, that may be before the next
elections, the task would be undertaken by the authorities.
However, in respect of present petition is concerned, at the cost of
repetition, we would say that when respondent Nos.3 and 4 are
wp-1123-2024.odt
following the statutory rules, then writ of mandamus cannot be
issued.
17. The writ petition stands dismissed.
18. Rule is discharged.
[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
