Madhya Pradesh High Court
WP/23560/2017 of KAVITA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 December 2017
MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Writ Petition No.23560 of 2017. (Kavita
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDOREWrit Petition No.23560 of 2017.(Kavita w/o Shri Kishan and others v/s State of M.P. and others)
-Indore, Dated : 28.12.2017:
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate for theRespondent Nos.1 to 4/State, on advance copy.
Shri O.P.Solanki, learned counsel for the RespondentNo.5.
IA No.18893/2017, an application for urgent hearing andIA No.18742/2017, an application for urgent hearing duringWinter Vacation considered and allowed.
Heard on the question of admission.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
THE petitioners have filed the present petition beingaggrieved by order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the RespondentNo.2 (Appellate Authority) by which their appeal has beendismissed and order of Registration Officer-cum-Sub DivisionalOfficer dated 31.10.2017 has been affirmed.
[2]The petitioners are residents of Gram PanchayatRampuriya Khurd, Tehsil Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, DistrictIndore. The election of Gram Panchayat has been notified underthe provisions of M. P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram SwarajAdhiniyam, 1993 [in brief “the Adhiniyam of 1993”] and M. P.Panchayat Nirvachan Niyam, 1995 [in brief “the Niyam of1995”]. Under Rule 9 and 10 of the Niyam of 1995, the voter listwas published on 31.10.2017. The names of the petitioners arefound place in the aforesaid voter list. The Respondent No.5 hassubmitted an objection in respect of the inclusion of thepetitioners' name in the voter list. According to the petitionersthe Respondent No.3 (Registration Officer-cum-Sub DivisionalOfficer) has passed the order behind their back and recorded the finding that they are not residents of Gram PanchayatRampuriya Khurd, Tehsil Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, DistrictIndore hence directed for deletion of their names. Beingaggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred anappeal before the Collector and District Election Officer. Videorder dated 12.12.2017 the Collector has dismissed their appealand upheld the order of Registration Officer-cum-SubDivisional Officer. According to the petitioners, they arepermanent residents of Gram Panchayat Rampuriya Khurd,Tehsil Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore, therefore, theirnames have wrongly directed to be deleted from the voter list.Before passing of the order, opportunity of hearing was notgranted to the petitioners. Therefore, the order is illegal.
[3]Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocateappearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State submitsthat the election programme for General/By-elections year 2017for Panchayats have already been notified vide order dated25.12.2017 by the M. P. State Election Commission. Therefore,now at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Thevoter list has attained finality and there is a specific bar underthe Constitution of India for interference by the High court inthe election process. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writpetition.
[4]The Chapter IV of the Niyam of 1995 providespreparation of voter list. Rule 10 of the Niyam 1995 providespublication of voter's list and institution of claims andobjections. Any person whose name is not entered in the voterlist may submit his claim and objection and any person is alsoentitled to file an objection in respect of his name or name ofother persons included in the list. Rule 12 provides the disposalof claims and objections. As per sub-rule (5) of Rule 12, any
person aggrieved by the decision of the Registration Officer mayprefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority within five days. Thedecision of the appellate authority shall be final and as per theproviso no amendment shall be carried out in the voters' listafter the last date and the time fixed for making nominations inthe notice issued under Rule 28 and before the completion ofelection. Therefore, after the order of appellate authority, thevoters list attains finality and no amendment in it is permissible.The amendment in the voter list is possible only when theappellate authority directs. The Apex Court in the case ofElection Commission of Indiav/sAshok Kumar[AIR 2000 SC2977] has held that the election proceedings commencing fromthe date of notification of the election till the date of declarationof result and the judicial remedy has to be postponed till afterthe completing of proceedings in elections. Para 32 (1) of theorder is reproduced below :- “(1)If an election, (the term 'election' being widelyinterpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedingscommencing from the date of notification of election till the date ofdeclaration of result) is to be called in question and whichquestioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing orprotracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking ofjudicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing ofproceedings in elections.”
[5]In view of the above, at this stage the interference inelection process is not permissible in this petition. Hence,admission is denied. The petitioners are having other remedy toapproach competent forum under the Adhiniyam of 1993 andunder the Niyam of 1995.
[6]The petition is accordingly dismissed.
[ VIVEK RUSIA ] VAC. JUDGE
(AKS)