Jagdish Pawar vs State Election Commission & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1433 Del

$~45
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                           W.P.(C) 2444/2017
                                        Date of decision: 16th March, 2017
       JAGDISH PAWAR                            ..... Petitioner
                    Through    Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Mr. Vijay
                    Kasana, Ms. Priyanka Khattar and Mr. Prashant
                    Khatana, Advocates.

                            versus

       STATE ELECTION COMMISSION & ORS         ..... Respondent
                    Through     Mr. Summet Pushkarna, Standing
                    Counsel, Mr. Siddhartha Nagpal, Advocate and
                    Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary, State
                    Election Commission.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

        SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

Jagdish Pawar has filed the present Public Interest Litigation on

two grounds. Firstly, it is asserted that the twelve thousand voters of

Constituent Assembly No.31 have not been included in any of the

Wards carved out of the Constituent Assembly, thereby denying them

voting right. Secondly, objection is raised as to the Ward numbers

awarded to Ranhola, Vikas Nagar, Vikas Puri, Sainik Enclave,

Bapraula and Hastsal. To highlight the importance of numbers, it is

pointed out that each even number ward has been reserved for woman

candidate.

2. On the first aspect, learned counsel for the State Election

Commission has pointed out that the assertion made is factually

incorrect as the twelve thousand voters referred to by the petitioner

have been included in Ward No. 21-S Hastsal. They would be

entitled to cast their votes in the forthcoming municipal elections in

Polling Station Nos.200 to 212.

3. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the

State Election Commission, on instructions, counsel for the petitioner

states that the first objection/ground does not survive.

4. Regarding the second objection/ground, counsel for the State

Election Commission states that the Ward numbering has been done

in a clockwise manner within the Assembly Constituency. In view of

the above, Ranhola has been given Ward No.19-S, Vikas Puri has

been given Ward No. 20-S, Hastsal has been given Ward No.21-S,

Sainik Enclave has been given Ward No.22-S, Vikas Nagar has been

given Ward No.23-S and Bapraula has been given Ward No.24-S.

5. In view of the aforesaid explanation given by the counsel for

the State Election Commission, we do not find any reason to adjourn

the matter for further consideration on the second aspect.

6. There is one more aspect, which we must also note. The State

Election Commission had published a note on delimitation process to

examine, study, analyse, and determine the boundaries of Wards

within the Constituent Assembly and finalize the Wards' boundaries.

Meetings and consultations were held with officers, elected

representatives, public, and the Resident Welfare Association.

Thereafter, the first draft of delimitation was prepared with details

relating to wards, population data, newly delimited Wards with

population etc. and displayed on the website of the Commission on 9th

September, 2016. In addition, public advertisements were made in 9

newspapers in four languages, i.e. English, Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu.

Objections/suggestions were invited and 700

suggestions/recommendations were received. The objective was to

have wider consultations with various stakeholders before finalising

the recommendations and sending it to the government.

7. Thereafter, a meeting was held on 24th October, 2016, in which

the Commissioners and Town Planners of the three Municipal

Corporations had discussed various issues including demarcation of

boundaries, how municipal services would be provided as per

delimitation of Wards, how to treat the undemarcated areas, etc.

Thus, it was after the detailed discussions and extensive deliberations,

which are interactive and totally transparent, that the final ward list

with boundaries was re-drafted and published.

8. It is an accepted and admitted case that the petitioner in the

present case had at no stage raised objection or give any suggestion.

It would have been appropriate and proper for the petitioner to have

raised objection or make suggestions when draft delimitations were

published and notified for response/suggestions from the public.

9. The petitioners have raised objections and have moved to the

Court after the publication of the final demarcation notification on

13th January, 2017. It appears that the attempt is to stall and delay the

municipal elections. For this reason, we have hesitation and

reservations in entertaining the present writ petition.

10. Counsel for the respondent has produced before us, note on

delimitation process from which we have taken the details and

information recorded above. With regard to the question of Ward

numbering, we have taken on record the statement made by the

counsel for the State Election Commission at the Bar, on instructions

from Mr. Girish Pandey, Deputy Secretary, who is present in the

Court. The satellite map of the wards in the assembly constituency

with the numbering is on record. We have not asked the respondents

to file counter affidavit in view of the paucity of time and as the

counsel for the petitioner also wants early and quick disposal of the

writ petition.

11. With the aforesaid observations, we dispose of the present writ

petition.

SANJIV KHANNA, J

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J MARCH 16, 2017 NA