The availability of statutory remedies under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 restricts the maintainability of a writ petition regarding electoral roll inclusion.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. A.I. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6; and Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 7, 8, 9 & 10.

2. The petitioners, five in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that they have a common cause of action to espouse.

3. The petitioners have stated that they are members of the same family and for a long period of time, they have been casting their votes in both State Legislative Assembly ElectionS and/or Parliamentary ElectionS by virtue of enrolment of their names as voters in the electoral rolls. The petitioners have claimed that all of them had casted votes in the previous elections to the State Legislative Assembly and/or Parliament as the voters from No. 34 Dimoria [SC] Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], District - Kamrup [M], Assam. The petitioners were issued e-Electors Photo Identity Cards [e-EPICs] and they bear e-EPIC nos. – DZN2660642, DZN2660620, DZN2660631, DZN3843026 and DZN2660642 - respectively.

4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have come to learn that in the electoral rolls published after the recent exercise of special revision initiated by the Election Commission of India, their names are not included in the electoral rolls. Mr. Bhuyan has contended that in order to delete the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous electoral roll, such a person must be given a prior opportunity of being heard. But none of the petitioners was afforded any prior opportunity of being heard. Mr. Bhuyan has further submitted that the deletion of the names of the petitioners is perhaps attributable to an eviction drive carried out in and around the area where the petitioners have been residing for a long period of time exercising their right to vote. The respondent authorities in the State Government had carried out an eviction drive in and around Sonapur area on the ground that the area comes under Chapter X of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 [‘the ALRR, 1886’, for short]. As there is restriction / prohibition for acquiring status of landowner in Tribal Block / Tribal Belt declared under Chapter X of the ALRR, 1886 confining the land ownership to specific category of persons, the petitioners were unjustifiably taken within the purview of the eviction drive. A number of litigation ensued thereafter. Lastly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Contempt Petition [Civil] no. 44449/2024, by an Order dated 30.09.2024, directed the parties to maintain the status, as on that date. Thereafter, by virtue of the said status quo order, the petitioners are still continuing to reside in the addresses mentioned in their respective e-EPIC, that is, within the territorial limits of No. 34 Dimoria [SC] LAC. He has, thus, contended that the respondent authorities have acted illegally and arbitrarily to delete the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls.

5. Mr. Ali, learned Standing Counsel, ECI has submitted that ordinarily, prior to deletion of any names of a person from electoral roll, such a person is to be given a prior opportunity of being heard and any deletion of name can only be made after proper verification of facts. He has submitted that the petitioners have alleged that no prior and reaso