The Election Commission has the discretion to determine polling booth locations, and this discretion is not subject to statutory contestation by affected parties.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri.Delli Rajan.N., for learned counsel Sri.Subba Reddy.K.N., for appellants and learned senior counsel Sri.K.N.Phanindra for Smt.Vaishali Hegde, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri.B.L.Sanjeev for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants/petitioners approached learned Single Judge with a prayer to quash notice dated 16.08.2015 (Annexure-A) wherein for BBMP elections to be held on 22.08.2015, since the appellants/petitioners’ building was within the limits of 100 meters to polling booth, informed to take action for closing the party symbol and by vacating office flags as on 21.08.2015 and 22.08.2015 respectively. Learned Single Judge under impugned order dated 20.08.2015 rejected the writ petition holding that the Election Commission is justified in not moving the polling station, considering the ambit and scope of Section 46 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act , 1976 (for short, ‘1976 Act’). Questioning the same, appellants/petitioners are in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants reiterating the grounds urged before the learned Single Judge would submit that request of the appellants/petitioners to shift the polling booth is rejected on erroneous ground without even considering the representation of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Handbook for Returning Officers and Manual on Polling Stations would require the Election Commission to consider the representation or objections, if any by the general public. Non-consideration of the representation of the petitioner has resulted in hardship to the appellants/petitioners and the notice violates the rights of the appellants/petitioners to vacate its flag and symbol.

4. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri.Phanindra for Election Commission would submit that there is no right much less statutory right for petitioners to seek shifting of polling booth and it is for the Election Commission to fix the booth in the locality considering the public convenience. Moreover, he submits that the appellants/petitioners’ prayer would no more survive for consideration in view of the report submitted by the District Election Officer, BBMP to the State Election Commission which lays down certain preventive measures. Learned senior counsel Sri.Phanindra would submit that if those preventive measures are followed, shifting of booth would not arise. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the considered view that the considered order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellants/petitioners would not require interference. 6. Learned Single Judge has taken note of Section

46 of the 1976 Act and the model code of conduct to arrive at a just conclusion. Moreover, the measures suggested by the District Election Commissioner would take care of the grievance raised by the appellants/petitioners. The measures suggested by the District Election Commissioner reads as follows:

“

1. F »AzÉ £ÀqÉzÀ §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÉ-2015gÀ°è ªÀÄvÀUÀmÉÖUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå “138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 144” EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀĺÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉAiÀÄ PÉÆÃzÀAqÀgÁªÀÄ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸Áܦ¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄvÀUÀmÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ d£ÀvÁ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ JzÀÄjUÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

2. D ZÀÄ£ÁªÀuÁ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄvÀUÀmÉÖUÀ¼ÀÄ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ JzÀÄjUÉ E