2007 Supreme(All) 1266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Honble Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J. , Honble Rajes Kumar, J.
SHYAM SUNDARI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 17937 Of 2007
Decided On : 04/26/2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is that no inclusion or exclusion of names in the voter list is permissible after the date of making nominations, as mandated by Section 23 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Headnote:
Voter List Inclusion - Representation of the People Act - Section 23 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 23 of the Act, which deals with the inclusion of names in electoral rolls, and emphasized that no inclusion or exclusion of names in the voter list is permissible after the date of making nominations. The court cited several precedents to support its conclusion and highlighted the mandatory nature of the statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought inclusion of names in the voter list for a Legislative Assembly constituency, claiming that many applications for inclusion were pending and action was not being taken, potentially depriving individuals of their right to vote. The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that it was not maintainable and that it was too late to entertain such a petition due to the election schedule.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no inclusion or exclusion of names in the voter list is permissible after the date of making nominations, as per Section 23 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950. It concluded that the petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court could issue a direction for inclusion of names in the voter list after the date of making nominations, considering the statutory provisions and the election schedule.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of Section 23 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950, and cited precedents to establish the mandatory nature of the statutory injunction against making any revision in the electoral roll after the last date for making nominations.
Final Decision: The petition was found to be devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming herself to be a social worker and relief sought is to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11/3/2007 (Annex-1) for inclusion of names of the persons in the voter list of Legislative Assembly constituency Sirathu District Kaushambi so that the public interest at large be protected. Shri C. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that large number of persons have filed applications for inclusion of their names in electoral rolls/voter list; applications have been submitted in Form- 6 as required under the rules, but no action is being taken and large number persons are likely to be deprived of their valuable right to vote.
( 2 ) THEREFORE petition deserves to be allowed and direction be issued to the respondents to include the names of such persons in the voter list forthwith.
( 3 ) ON the other hand Shri C. K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel and Shri P. N. Rai appearing for the respondents have opposed the petition contending that writ petition itself is not maintainable as right to vote is a statutory right and such objection can be taken by the individual persons. Petitioner cannot agitate such an issue on behalf of others. Even otherwise, it is too late to entertain a petition for issuing such directions as nominations for the election in the said constituency have already been made. Petition is liable to be dismissed. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
( 4 ) THE election schedule so far as the constituency involved herein, is concerned, reveals that the notification for election was issued on 05/4/2007. The last date for making the nominations was 12/4/2007 and election is to be held on 03/5/2007. Section 23 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the act) deals with preparation of the Electoral Rolls, which reads as under:
"23. Inclusion of names in electoral rolls. (1) Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll. (2) The electoral registration officer, shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein: (3) No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry shall be made under section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the Parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election" (Emphasis added ).
( 5 ) THE order passed under section 23 of the Act is appeallable under section 24 of the Act. The legislature has framed the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (herein after called the Rule 1960) to give effect to the provisions of the Act. The said rule provides for a complete procedure for preparing the electoral rolls. Rule 10 thereof, provides for publication of roll in draft. The draft rolls are given publicity as provided for in Rule 11. Rule 12 provides for procedure for lodging claims and objections in respect of inclusion and exclusion of names from the electoral rolls. However, such objections can be filed within 30 days from the date of publication of the draft rolls under Rule 10. Rule 13 provides for different kind of forms for submitting the claims and objections and it is to be sent to the authority concerned in the manner prescribed under Rule 14. Rule 15, further puts an obligation on the designated officer to process such claims and objections. Rule 17 provides that a claim or objection which is not submitted within the period prescribed hereinabove or in the form and manner specified therein shall be rejected. Rule 18 provides for acceptance o