Amit And Others vs State Of H.P. & Others

Anoop Chitkara, J

The petitioners aggrieved by deletion of their names from the voters list have come up before this Court on the grounds that it is in violation of the

Rules 19(3) and Rule 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994.

I have heard Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State and

Mr. Ajit Saklani, Advocate for respondent No.3-State Election Commission.

The entire controversy started when one Babu Ram complained to the concerned authority that fourteen persons, who have been named in the final

voter-list, were also the voters in Shimla Municipal Corporation. Mr. Bhupender Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of

this Court to Annexure P-12, which is noting sheet and objection No.3, reveals that Babu Ram S/o Shri Dharam Singh, Gram Panchayat, Dravil had

objected on the grounds that their names are already registered in the voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla.

To the contrary, another information is received, which reveals that although the names were found to be registered in the voters list of Municipal

Corporation, Shimla, but the petitioners, wanted the names to be deleted from such voters list, on the grounds that they are permanent residents of this

Panchayat and not of Shimla. It is further revealed from this Note that no Election is taking place in Municipal Corporation, Shimla, as such their

names be transferred to their native places.

A perusal of the pleadings reveals that the only contentions of the petitioners are that they are normally residing in their native places and not in

Shimla. There is no specific pleadings that either the petitioners were not registered as voters in the list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla or that they

had applied for deletion of their names from the Voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and shifting the same to their native villages.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate for the petitioners states that a general reading of the petition would reveal such facts.

I have gone through the pleadings and the pleadings is conspicuously silent about the fact. The difficulty this Court is confronted with is that if they

are already voters of Municipal Corporation, Shimla and they are also permitted to cast their votes in the Panchyat elections, then it would be against

the statute because a person cannot be a voter at two places simultaneously.

Another problem would be that if the margin of defeat is less than the number of these votes, then it may jeopardize the entire election process. Be

that as it may, the burden was on the petitioners to make appropriate pleadings and also support the corroborating documents whereby they had

requested the deletion of their names from the voters list of Municipal Corporation, Shimla, if they were registered there. In case the petitioners were

not registered as the voters at Municipal Corporation, Shimla, there should have been specific pleadings to the effect that the complaint to such effect

is false. The pleadings are silent. Therefore, both the petitions are dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court on questions

of law, in case they are so advised and they shall also be at liberty to exercise their legal rights under the Panchayati Raj Act and Rules, if such rights

exist. Pending application(s), if any, are closed.

Authenticated copy.