S. Sameeulla vs The Tahasildar, Hospet and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—1. The petitioner filed the above writ petition seeking for writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 13.11.2015, passed by the 1st respondent and the impugned endorsement dated 18.12.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent, and also for writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allow Form Nos. 6 and 7 and make necessary correction by adding the name of petitioner in Venkatapur Part (Division) 156 by deleting his name from Kamalapur village Part (Division) 123, in the interest of justice.

It is the case of the petitioner that, he is the permanent resident of Venkatapur Camp in Part (Division) 156 situated in Hospet Taluk, Ballari District. In view of the notification issued by the Election Commission for holding elections of Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat throughout the State, the revision of voter list being carried out by the 1st respondent under the provisions of Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993. The Tahasildar is the Competent Authority to amend or delete any entry in the electoral-roll of the Zilla Panchayat Constituency.

In view of the same, the petitioner filed Form No. 6 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules, 1960'', for short), for insertion of his name in Venkatapur village at part (Division) 156 and also for deletion of his name from the electoral-roll of Kamalapur while filing Form No. 7 before the 1st respondent. It is also contended by the petitioner that, nobody filed any objections to the said applications. The petitioner filed supporting documents to prove that he is the permanent resident of Venkatapur village and not residing at Kamalapur village. The Tahasildar, in stead of allowing Form Nos. 6 and 7, proceeded to direct the Revenue Inspector to hold enquiry and to submit the report; based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, the 1st respondent has proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A, rejecting the petitioner''s applications in Form No. 6 and 7.

Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1960. The Appellate Authority, without considering the appeal on merits, has issued the endorsement dated 18.12.2015, stating that the revised voter list is already completed, and therefore, it cannot include or delete or amend any name from the voter list. Against the said orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the petitioner is before this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri F.V. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the material documents at Annexures C, C1 to C4 produced by the petitioner along with Form No. 6 makes it clear that the petitioner is living at Venkatapura. The said documents are not at all considered by the respondents nobody objected for insertion of his name in the voter list of Venkatapur. Therefore, he contended that the impugned orders passed by the respondents, rejecting the petitioner''s applications, are contrary to law and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the urgency of the matter, the Assistant Commissioner ought to have taken immediate steps for entertaining the appeal and pass the appropriate orders in accordance with law. Instead of doing so, the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly issued endorsement stating that the voter list cannot be revised, as the revised voters list has already been prepared. Hence, he sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the respondents. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely upon the dictum of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 3137).

Per contra Smt. Vidyavathi, learned AGA, sought to justify the impugned orders and contended that the petitioner was the President at Kamalapur Town Panchayat during the year 2001-2005. The proceedings of the Town Panchayat dated 31.12.2001 depicts the fact that the Tahasildar has handed over the charge to the petitioner as Adhyakshya. The voter list prepared on 15.09.2015 depicts that the petitioner is a resident of Kamalapur and not the resident of Venkatapur. Therefore she sought to dismiss the writ petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.

The records reveal that the petitioner wants to change his name from the voter list of Kamalapur to Venkatapur. Accordingly, he filed Form No. 6 for insertion of his name in the voter list of Venkatapur and Form No. 7 for deletion of his name from the voter list of Kamalapur. In pursuance of the said applications filed, the Tahasildar referred the matter to the Revenue Inspector, who inspected the spot without notice to the petitioner and in his absence prepared the report and submitted the same to the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar, solely on the basis of the report, without giving any notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner, has proceeded to pass the impugned order, without considering the material public documents Annexures C, C1 to C4, namely the school records of his children, temporary ration card and also the Adhar cards, which clearly depicts that the petitioner is the resident of Venkatapur village.

It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, which is the Appellate Authority under the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules, 1960. The Assistant Commissioner, without considering the grounds urged by the petitioner in the appeal and without considering the material documents, has simply issued the endorsement only on the ground that the names cannot be included in the voter list since the revised voter list is already prepared. The 2nd respondent - Assistant Commissioner, has not disposed of the appeal on merits and therefore the endorsement issued is contrary to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Rules, 1960. It is the duty of the Appellate Authority to decide whether the order passed by the Tahsildar, impugned before the Appellate Authority, is in accordance with law or not. Without considering the material aspects, the Appellate Authority has issued the endorsement, which is contrary to law and the same cannot be sustained.

The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the case of Kuldip Nayar (supra) has no relevance to the facts of the present case, and this writ petition is disposed of without reference to the merits of the case, only on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the authorities are in violation of principal of natural justice.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders passed by the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained. The matter requires to be remanded to the Tahasildar for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tahasildar for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The Tahasildar is directed to consider the materials produced by the petitioner and after giving sufficient opportunity to put forth his case, pass orders on merits in accordance with law within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Tahasildar with all relevant records on 12.01.2016 at 3.00 p.m.

Ordered accordingly.