Amit vs State Of H.P. & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 616 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.481 & 495 of 2021.

.

Date of Decision : January 18, 2021.

1. CWP No. 481 of 2021.

Amit                                                           ...Petitioner.





                           Versus
State of H.P. & Others                                     ...Respondents.

2.           CWP No. 495 of 2021.





Rakesh & Others                                                ....Petitioners

                           Versus

State of H.P. & Others.                                    ....Respondents

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate.

For the respondents        :        Mr. Bhupender Thakur, Deputy




                                    Advocate General with Mr. Rajat
                                    Chauhan,       Law   Officer   for





                                    respondents No.1, 2 and 4, in both
                                    the petitions.





                                    Mr. Ajit Saklani,            Advocate          for
                                    respondent No.3,            in both           the
                                    petitions.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).

The petitioners aggrieved by deletion of their names from

the voters list have come up before this Court on the grounds that it is

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

in violation of the Rules 19(3) and Rule 24 of the Himachal Pradesh

Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.

.

2. I have heard Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner,

Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for

respondents-State and Mr. Ajit Saklani, Advocate for respondent No.3-

State Election Commission.

3. The entire controversy started when one Babu Ram

complained to the concerned authority that fourteen persons, who

have been named in the final voter-list, were also the voters in Shimla

Municipal Corporation. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy

Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure

P-12, which is noting sheet and objection No.3, reveals that Babu Ram

S/o Shri Dharam Singh, Gram Panchayat, Dravil had objected on the

grounds that their names are already registered in the voters list of

Municipal Corporation, Shimla.

4. To the contrary, another information is received, which

reveals that although the names were found to be registered in the

voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, but the petitioners,

wanted the names to be deleted from such voters list, on the grounds

that they are permanent residents of this Panchayat and not of

Shimla. It is further revealed from this Note that no Election is taking

place in Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as such their names be

transferred to their native places.

5. A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the only contentions

of the petitioners are that they are normally residing in their native

.

places and not in Shimla. There is no specific pleadings that either

the petitioners were not registered as voters in the list of Municipal

Corporation, Shimla or that they had applied for deletion of their

names from the Voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and

shifting the same to their native villages.

6. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners states that a

general reading of the petition would reveal such facts.

7. I have gone through the pleadings and the pleadings is

conspicuously silent about the fact. The difficulty this Court is

confronted with is that if they are already voters of Municipal

Corporation, Shimla and they are also permitted to cast their votes in

the Panchyat elections, then it would be against the statute because a

person cannot be a voter at two places simultaneously.

8. Another problem would be that if the margin of defeat is less

than the number of these votes, then it may jeopardize the entire

election process. Be that as it may, the burden was on the petitioners

to make appropriate pleadings and also support the corroborating

documents whereby they had requested the deletion of their names

from the voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, if they were

registered there. In case the petitioners were not registered as the

voters at Municipal Corporation, Shimla, there should have been

specific pleadings to the effect that the complaint to such effect is

false. The pleadings are silent. Therefore, both the petitions are

dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this

.

Court on questions of law, in case they are so advised and they shall

also be at liberty to exercise their legal rights under the Panchayati

Raj Act and Rules, if such rights exist. Pending application(s), if any,

are closed.

Authenticated copy.

(Anoop Chitkara), Vacation Judge January 18, 2021 (ps) r