ORDER (Per : Ravindra V Ghuge, J)

1. The issue raised by the Petitioner in person, is as regards the endeavour to be made by the Election Commission of India for making the voters aware of the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) and more specifically, the use of ‘None of The Above’ (NOTA). Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties and another vs. Union of India and another, (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1.

2. The learned Standing Counsel/Advocates for the Union of India and the Election Commission of India, as well as the Chief Electoral Officer, Maharashtra, submit that since the Petitioner had earlier filed an identical PIL No. 121/2019, this Court should not entertain the instant Petition, which deserves to be dismissed with heavy costs since it is publicity oriented.

3. After having considered the submissions of the PIL Petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1, we have perused PIL No. 121/2019, filed earlier by the same PIL Petitioner before us. This Court [Coram : Prasanna B. Varale (as His Lordship then was) & Avinash G. Gharote, JJ.], had heard the PIL Petitioner and had passed a detailed order on 14^th October, 2019, which reads thus :-

On considering the issue raised in the present public interest litigation, namely, the direction to the respondents-authorities to take effective steps for general public awareness in regard to the option available to the voters to the ‘NOTA’ (None Of The Above), notice was issued to the respondents. In response to the notice, Mr. Kadethankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submitted that the necessary steps so as to make the public general aware of the option ‘NOTA’ area already taken and there is a large circulation of the availability of this option by various modes. He placed on record the compilation of the various communications issued by the State Election Commission, which are taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.

2. The petitioner in the present public interest litigation sought for direction in view of the judgment of the Honourable the Apex Court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties and anr. Vs. Union of India & anr.

3. Bare perusal of the communication shows that the State Election Commission specifically referred to the judgment and order of the Honourable the Apex Court in the very case i.e. People’s Union for Civil Liberties and ors. Vs. Union of India & anr. Mr. Kadethankar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the State Election Commission had taken the steps in all ensuing elections including the elections of Municipal Corporations, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis, Nagar Parishads, Nagar Panchayats and Gram Panchayats, etc.

4. Perusal of the order dated 12^th November, 2013, issued by the State Election Commission refers to the option of the ‘NOTA’ to be made available to the voters and also the modalities and the procedures. This order also refers to the option being made available in the language in which the name of the candidates are published on the ballot paper. It also takes care of the visibility of the option by making assured that the font size of the option ‘NOTA’ being equal with the font size of the name of the candidates published on the ballot paper. This order takes care of counting all the votes by exercising the option of ‘NOTA’. The annexure-1 to the said order is the proforma ballot papers for elections of Corporations, Zilla Parishads, Panchayat Samitis, Nagar Parishads, Nagar Panchayats and Gram Panchayats. The compilation of the documents also refers to a documentary being prepared by the State Election Commission and availability of the said documentary on the website of the State Election Commission, namely, “www.mahasec.com. Then there is also an additional order passed by the State Election Commission on 26^th November, 2013, whereby the directions are issued to the Election Officers so as to take