AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
24 paragraphs · 1,218 wordsAshok B. Hinchigeri, J.—As these petitions involve the same questions of law, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Sri Hanumanthappa, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 39563/2010 submits that the Petitioner''s application filed in form No. 6 (Annexure-B) for the inclusion of the Petitioner''s name in the voters'' list of Koppa Village has remained unconsidered.
Sri Subramanya, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P. No. 39703-704/2010 submits that the Petitioners'' applications in form No. 6 (Annexures-H and J) for the inclusion of their names in the voters list of Akkuru Village, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District have remained unconsidered. He submits that u/s 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, it is the obligation of the Registration Officer to direct that the Applicant''s name be included in the electoral roll, if the Registration officer is satisfied that the Applicant is entitled be registered. As the Registration Officer has not discharged his obligatory function, the Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.
Sri G. Papi Reddy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 39827/2010 submits that the Petitioner has made an application in form No. 6, dated 14.11.2010 (Annexure-E) for the inclusion of his name in the Thayalur voters'' list, Mulagabal Taluk. He submits that the Registration Officer has belatedly issued the endorsement, dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure-G) stating that the steps would be taken in accordance with the State Election Commission''s communication, dated 08.10.2010.
Having regard to the importance of the matter, the Court called upon the Additional Advocate General, Sri K.M. Nataraj to make the Government''s stand clear. The learned Additional Government Advocate brought to my notice, the Apex Court''s decision in the Lakshmi Charan Sen And Ors. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman And Ors. Air 1985 Sc 1233, wherein it is held that the preparation of the electoral roll is a continuous process. The submits that the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 (hereinafter called 1960 Rules) are made with a view to give full effect to what is said in Sections 17 and 18 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The said sections are extracted hereinbelow:
No person to be registered in more than one constituency
No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for more than one constituency.
No person to be registered more than once in any constituency
No person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any constituency more than once.
He further submits that Rules 21 and 21A on one hand and Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules on the other hand operate in different fields (situations). Rules 21 and 21A come into picture when the names are inadvertently omitted or deleted. But if a party makes an application for the inclusion, exclusion or transposition based on his voluntary act, the same has to be considered under Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules, He prays for the harmonious construction of Rules 21, 21A and 26; otherwise Rule 26 would be reduced to a dead letter.
The learned Additional Advocate General clearly submits that where the applications can be considered under Rules 21 and 21A of the 1960 Rules, the Registration Officers would pass the orders on or before 15.12.2010 but where the applications are to be considered under Rule 26, It may not be possible to pass any orders, if the applications are not displayed in conspicuous place calling for objections.
Having regard to the importance of the matter, this Court has also called upon the other learned members of the bar to address their arguments in the matter, though they may not be appearing for any party in these cases.
Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, the learned Senior Counsel submits that if the Registration Officer considers the matter under Rule 21 and 21A, the question of following the procedure under Rule 26 may not arise at all.
Sri Padmanabha Mahale, learned Senior Counsel submits that the requirement of Rule that the objections be called for may not be realistic.
Sri K.N. Phanindra, the learned Counsel for the State Election Commission submits that the Registration Officer ought to have considered and passed the orders on the Petitioners'' requests in the normal course itself. As the Registration Officers did not comprehend the Commission''s circular 08.10.2010, the Commission has issued the clarificatory circular, dated 09.12.2010 making the position clear that the Registration Officer has to consider the applications in accordance with law any time before the last date for the filing of the nomination forms.
This Court by its order, dated 10.12.2010 passed in W.P. No. 39571-572/2010 and other connected petitions passed the following order:
In the result, these petitions are allowed with a direction to the Registration Officer to immediately pass the orders on the Petitioners'' applications for their exclusion or inclusion in the voters'' list of the ensuing elections. In Writ Petition No. 39585/2010 the Registration Officer''s order, dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure-K) is quashed.
As the last date for the filing of the nomination papers for the ensuing elections is 15.12.2010, the Registration Officer is directed to act in the matter forthwith and pass the order latest by 14.12.2010. If the Petitioners are otherwise entitled to have their names excluded and/or included in the voters'' list of the ensuing elections, the same shall not be denied to them. The exclusion, inclusion or transposition, whether occasioned by the Petitioners'' voluntary acts or their names are left out inadvertently or for any reasons, the Petitioners cannot be rendered remediless. The Petitioners are absolutely blameless. They are entitled to the consideration of their request for the exclusion/inclusion/transposition, etc. in the voters'' list of the ensuing election, in accordance with law and the Election Commission''s circular, dated 9-12-2010.
This Court does not approve of the delay on the part of the Petitioners in approaching this Court. Nonetheless, this Court does not propose to throw out the petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The reliefs would be moulded and granted to the extent possible. If the Petitioners had only approached this Court last week, these petitions could have been disposed of in terms of this Court''s order, dated 10.12.2010. Now the Petitioners are seeking a mandamus to the Registration Officer to exclude/include/transpose their applications within two days.
Considering Rule 21 and 21A on the one hand and Rule 26 on the other hand, the case on hand can be divided into two classes:
a) If the Petitioners'' names are omitted or deleted inadvertently without any contribution from the Petitioners'' side, the Registration Officer/Officers shall correct the same immediately i.e. within 15.12.2010 in compliance with Rule 21 and 21A.
b) If the applications for inclusion/exclusion/ transposition, based on their voluntary act, are to be considered under Rule 26, the Registration Officer has to consider the same in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.
It is not known whether the Registration Officer has called for the objections to the applications falling in (b) class. The Registration Officer is directed to consider passing the orders on their applications [falling in class (b)] before 15.12.2010, if possible.
Accordingly these petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.