Ramdas Nana Andhale vs Electoral Registration Officer and Others

Heard. Voters Lists for election of Ahmednagar and Dhule Municipal Corporations, alongwith other Municipal Corporations is to be finalized by 13.11.2013. Provisional Voters List has been published on 1/10/2013.

Petitioner has approached with a grievance that provisional voters list does not include his name. An objection in that respect was already raised within time i.e. 16.9.2013 by filing appropriate application with the office of the respondent No. 1 and the same has been rejected on 17.10.2013, on totally irrelevant grounds. Contention is, reliance upon provisions of section 7-A of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act and for said purpose, mechanical acceptance of the voters list prepared by the office of the respondent No. 1 for Assembly Elections is erroneous.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that though list prepared by respondent No. 1 can be used by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it is only provisional. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that legal provisions nowhere bar appropriate corrections by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore only notice was issued on 1.10.2013. Without prejudice, he points out that here, petitioner is not seeking any challenge on account of subsequent events but, he is pointing out the error which has taken place prior to 1/10/2013 and in its absence, it would not have been necessary for petitioner to raise any objection.

Learned ASGI for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Shelke, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 strongly oppose the petition. They submit that as per the statutory scheme, list prepared by respondent No. 1 is to be used by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and hence, names cannot be included by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 therein. They seek support from judgment of this Court reported at Shri Savio O. Fernandes and another Vs. State Election Commissioner and others, .

The Division Bench of this Court, while sitting at Goa in similar situation, has rejected the petition seeking inclusion of names in voters list.

Here, the petitioner has been informed that list prevailing on 1/10/2013 is to be used by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It has also been pointed out that even if objection is raised, and is found sustainable, corrections can be carried out by respondent No. 1 and as per the programme published for that purpose by respondent No. 1, the corrected list/final list is to be published on 6.1.2014. Hence, there is no question of interim updation.

We find that very same challenge has been gone into by the Division Bench of this Court at Goa. In fact, in said matter, there was challenge to constitutionality of section 11 of the Goa Municipalities Act on the ground that it does not permit correction in voters list for the purposes of Municipal elections. That challenge has been turned down. Hence, impugned order dated 17/10/2013 does not call for any interference. Writ petition is dismissed. No costs.