JUDGMENT

1. - By this writ petition the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

"(A) a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to prepare the voter lists and reconstitute the polling booths in accordance with the instructions/directions issued by the respondent Election Commission.

(B) That any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."
The petitioners claim that they are bona fide resident of Ladnu. Ladnu is a town which falls within the district of Nagaur. It is a constituency of the State Legislative Assembly. It bears constituency Code No. 193. As per the directions dated June 3, 2002 (Annx. 3) of the Election Commission of India, the District Electoral Officer and the Electoral Registration Officers are required to reconstitute the polling booths and the electoral voter lists. The petitioners aver and allege that the respondents while reconstituting the polling booths have divided many wards of municipal area of Ladnu into 3 or 4 parts. This has been illustrated in the petition by the following table:

Ward No.	Total Voters	Divided into part	Part Numbers
04	1039	04	15, 17, 18, 19
05	982	03	7, 15, 16
08	700	02	20, 23
15	1040	05

As per the petitioners the effect of such division is that the voters of one I ward will not be able to cast their votes at the same polling booth and they will have to go to different polling booths to exercise their franchise. The petitioners also allege that in certain areas the voters will have to travel more than 2 Kms. to reach the polling stations which, according to them, is not in s keeping with the directions of the Election Commission of India dated June 3, 2002 (Anx. 3 to the petition). The petitioners also claim that contrary to the directions of the Election Commission Ward Nos. 27 and 29 has more than 1500 voters. in the aforesaid back ground the petitioners have filed the writ petition for the reliefs detailed above.

2. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is pointed out therein that the petitioners can not be aggrieved of any action of the respondents. It is further stated that all the five petitioners are voters of Ladnu constituency and they would cast their votes in the forthcoming elections at the same polling booths which were set up in the is year 1998. It is categorically denied by the respondents that any voter of the constituency will have to cover a distance of more than 2 Kms. for casting his vote. According to the counter affidavit the respondents have complied with the directions of the Election Commission of India dated June 3, 2002 (Anx. 3).

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before us has reiterated the allegations made in the writ petition and has submitted that the third respondent has acted contrary to the directions of the Election Commission dated June 3, 2002. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has denied the allegations levelled in the writ petition on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

4. In order to appreciate the controversy it would be necessary to notice the direction of the Election Commission dated June 3, 2002. According to para 6 thereof, reconstitution of the present polling booths is required when number of voters assigned to any of the booths exceeds 1500 or a voter has to travel a distance of more than 2 Kms. to reach a polling booth. it also provides that in case voters assigned to present polling booth are less in numbers, it can be merged with an other booth. in the counter affidavit it is stated that for none of the booths in the Ladnu m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document