Decided On: 02.01.202 vs State Of H.P. And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 73 HP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                                  CWP No. 39 of 2021
                                  Decided on: 02.01.2021
    __________________________________________________________________
    Manisha Vekta & others                        ....Petitioners
                             Versus




                                                                          .
    State of H.P. and others                     ......Respondents





    __________________________________________________________________
    Coram
    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.





    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
    1 Whether    approved for reporting? Yes.
    ______________________________________________________
    For the petitioners:                      Mr. D.N. Sharma, Advocate.





    For respondents No. 1, 2, 4
    5 & 6:                                    Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Deputy
                      r                       Advocate General.

    For respondent No. 3:     Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate.
    Sureshwar Thakur, Judge. (oral)

Petitioner No. 1, intends to contest the forthcoming

elections, to, the office, of, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Derighat.

Petitioners No. 2 and 3, are stated, on affidavit, to be her voters.

However, in the revised electoral rolls, hence published by

respondents No. 3 and 6, the names of all the writ petitioners, are,

excluded, from, the apposite voters' list. The finalization of the

voters' list, occurred in the month of November, 2020, and thereat

the excluded, from the voters' list, hence, voters, were asked to

make scribed representation(s), against their exclusion(s), rather

before respondents No. 3 and 6. The learned counsel for the writ

petitioners, submits that, though all the writ petitioners,

personally appeared before respondent No. 6, and also were,

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

assured, that the electoral rolls would become revised, however,

the afore, has not been done, thereupon, the writ petitioners

become excluded, from the electoral rolls, and concomitantly

whereupon, all the petitioner(s) are excluded respectively, from

.

either participating in the elections, to be conducted, to the office

of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, or are barred from

casting their ballots.

2. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, the learned Deputy Advocate

General, and, Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, the learned counsel,

respectively appearing for the respondents concerned, draw the

attention of this Court, towards the decision(s) rendered, by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, today (02.01.2021), upon, CWP

No. 6421 of 2020, titled as Shimlo Devi vs. HP State Election

Commissioner and ors., and CWP No. 6427 of 2020, titled as

Akhtar Hussain And Anr vs. HP State Election Commission

And Ors, wherein similar hereat espousal(s), become(s)

discountenanced. Consequently, they argue that the extant writ

petition, inconsonance therewith, also warrants dismissal.

3. Though, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners,

contends that, the dismissal of the afore writ petitions, by the Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court, becomes anviled, on, the trite anchor

of, the therein writ petitions, making representation(s) against their

exclusion(s), from the voters' list, rather beyond the timeline,

prescribed for the relevant purpose, whereas, the writ petitioners

herein, orally made representation(s), within, the prescribed

timeline, for the afore purpose, hence therethrough a distinction,

becomes aroused, inter se the facts, in those writ petitions, and,

the facts at hand, hence, the afore decisions, rendered by a Co-

.

ordinate Bench of this Court, do not encapsulate, the apt binding

ratio decidendi, for this Court, also taking a likewise decision.

However, the making of a mere oral representation(s), is/are not

sufficient, for enabling the counsel for the writ petitioners, to,

escape from the rigour, of, the apt ratio decidendi, set forth, in the

decisions (supra), made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, (a)

imperatively, when prescriptions are made, in the relevant

guidelines, that, upon exclusion(s), of, the aspirant(s) concerned,

or voter(s) concerned, from the apposite voters' list, they are to

make scribed representations, and that too, within the prescribed

timeline, hence before the authority concerned. Scribed

representation(s) whereof, are hereat, not apparently made, hence

for the relevant purpose, before the authority concerned.

Consequently, even if the writ petitioners, were issued voters'

identity cards, under the seal(s) and signature(s), of, the validly

constituted authority, and, yet when they became excluded, from

the electoral rolls, hence may prima facie make rendered

untenable, their exclusions, from the democratic process, (i)

nonetheless, when for all the afore stated reasons, the judgment

(supra), rather settling the afore controversy, thereupon, the mere

holding, of, voters' identity card(s), disable(s) the writ petitioners, to

participate in any manner, in the relevant democratic process. For

the afore reasons, this Court is constrained, not to grant, the

espoused relief(s) to the writ petitioners.

.

4. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant writ

petition, and the same is dismissed, so also pending application(s),

if any.

5. However, it is clarified that, the grievance, if any,

appertaining to the exclusion(s), of, the writ petitioners, from the

voters' list, despite their holding validly issued voters' identity

cards, may, if permissible, can be nursed, through the writ

petitioners' subsequent to the conclusion of elections, to, the

Pradhan of Gram Panchyat concerned, hence casting a challenge

thereon(s), through theirs instituting an election petition, before

the authorities concerned.

(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge

(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) Judge

2nd January, 2021 (raman/virender)