JALIL AHMED ANSARI Vs. DEVEOPMENT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the election to the Carpet Export Promotion Council on the ground that the notification issued by respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council notifying the schedule of election, date of issue of the list of valid nominations and issue of postal ballot papers were on 1/12/2000 and last date of the receipt of the postal ballot papers in the office of respondent-Carpet Export PromotioA Council was 21/12/2000 and date of polling was 22/12/2000. It was contended that the employees of Department of Post and Telegraph went on strike from 15/12/2000 which continued till the filing of the writ petition i.e. 19/12/2000. It was contended that on account of strike the postal ballot papers which were issued on 1/12/2000 could not reach the voters and as per the Rules of the respondents, there was no provision for extension of time. On that account the prayer was made to quash the notification dated 30/10/2000 by which the election of respondent-Carpet Export Promotion Council was announced and scheduled. This Court on 20/12/2000 issued notice and directed the respondents not to count the ballots which may be received pursuant to the election schedule announced by them. On 17/1/2001 one Madan Kaul, petitioner in C.W.P. no.339/2001 also filed a writ petition with the prayer for quashing the notification as well as praying for direction to constitute an enquiry into the acts of Development Commissioner, Ministry of Textiles and with further prayer of issuing writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondent nos.4 and 5 in C.w.P. no.339/2001 from preventing a meeting of the Committee of Administration, respondent no.5 is Mr.T S Chadha, Executive Director-cum-Secretary as well as Returning Officer.

(2.) Mr.Bansal. learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the basis of election Rules firstly contended that Returning Officer at the behest of Development Commissioner has permitted certain persons to vote and contest the election who otherwise were ineligible under the Rules. One such example was given of Mr.MD Mirza, who was contesting for the post of Committee of Administration Member on the ground that he has not cleared his dues since 1997. Yet another contention raised by Mr.Bansal was that in spite of the order passed on 20/12/2000 in C.W.P. no.7770/2000 directing the respondent not to count the ballots still the respondents counted the ballot papers. It was further contended by Mr.Bansal that although Rules provided that the ballot papers be sent to voters by registered post, it was not done. Mr.Bansal laid great stress that the schedule of election as announced by the respondents did not give 22 days period as per the Rules which is at page-26 of the paper book under the heading 'POSTAL BALLOT'. As that Rule would be relevant to decide the controversy, same is reproduced below :-

(3.) Lastly, it was contended by Mr.Bansal that after the appointment of court commissioner, it is seen that on the so many envelopes the name of courier company have not been given, therefore, there is likelihood of the ballots being stuffed by respondent nos. 4 and15 and on this score the election is vitiated on the ground of procedural irregularities committed by the Returning Officer.