The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the requirement of being 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency as stipulated in Section 19 of the Representation of People Act, 1950.

JUDGMENT :

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Karnal; and order dated 25.03.2021 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3-Electoral Registration Officer-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karnal–whereby the names of the petitioners have been deleted from the voter list of Village Bodsham, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal.

2. It is the petitioners' case that they are the permanent residents of Village Bodsham and had only temporarily shifted to District Kurukshetra and Uttar Pradesh etc. for the purposes of business, and that they have again returned to their Village Bodsham and have been residing there since the past two years. In support, the petitioners have appended their Aadhar Cards and PAN cards. It has accordingly been prayed that the orders dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure P-11) and 25.3.2021 (Annexure P-8) deleting their names from voter list for Village Bodsham be set aside, being illegal.

3. In response, counsel for the State took us through the record and the factual matrix of the sequence of events stating the same to be essential for the effective consideration of the entire controversy. Counsel stated that perusal of impugned order dated 25.3.2021 (Annexure P-8) reveals that one Shri Harjinder Singh s/o Man Singh, resident of village Bodsham, Tehsil Nilokheri, District Karnal had submitted an application before Respondent no. 3 stating therein that the petitioners had gone away from the village by selling their houses and land, and therefore, their names be deleted from the voter list. In pursuance thereto, the Respondent no. 3 issued notices to the petitioners through the Patwari asking them to appear before him on 23.2.2021. Accordingly, on 23.2.2021 the petitioners had appeared and were given a personal hearing. However, it was noted that the petitioners could not produce any evidence to show that they are permanent residents of the Village Bodsham. Even a spot verification was carried out by the Tehsildar, Nigdhu through the village Numberdar, Chowkidar, and Patwari, who vide his office letter no. 282 dated 22.3.2021 reported that the petitioners were not residing in the Village Bodsham and were residing in Kurukshetra since the past 3-4 years, and had no land in the village either. It was stated that it was in view of these facts that Respondent no. 3 had passed order dated 25.3.2021 deleting the names of the petitioners from the voter list as they were not permanent residents of Village Bodsham.

4. Against this order dated 25.03.2021, the petitioners had filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Karnal/Respondent no. 2 herein, who again sought a report from Naib Tehsildar, Nigdhu. Thereafter, upon hearing the parties, and considering the record and the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated 28.5.2021, the Respondent no. 2 passed order dated 9.6.2021, with the finding that the appellants/petitioners herein “are not permanent residents of village Bodsham because they are not having any residential house or agricultural land in village Bodsham. Hence, keeping in view the abovesaid facts, it has been confirmed that the order dated 25.3.2021 under appeal passed by the Electoral Registration Officer 19-Nilokheri (A.J.) Assembly Constituency-cum-Additional Deputy Commissioner, Karnal has been passed as per the evidence brought on file and as per rules and same calls no interference. Counsel for the appellants during arguments did not produce any such evidence or document from which it proves that the order passed by the Court below is not as per rules”. Accordingly, in appeal, the order dated 25.3.2021 was upheld.

5. Counsel for the State pointed out that (prior to present writ petition), the petitioners have alr