SUDHIR KUMAR PARCHA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in shifting polling stations just prior to starting of the election process for Municipal Corporation. Petitioners have also prayed for setting aside of the election results of Wards no. 5 and 19 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Elections 2012 and for a direction to conduct fresh elections to the said Wards.

(2.) At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents raise a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petitions on the ground that election disputes can only be raised by way of an election petition. In this connection, they rely upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Dist., and others, 1952 AIR(SC) 64 as well as Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and others, 2006 8 SCC 487. The relevant portion of the judgment in Avtar Singh Hit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(3.) Mr. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that jurisdiction under Article 226 is always available after the election process is over. In support of his submission, he refers to another judgment of the Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan and Another, 1999 4 SCC 526 wherein it has been held as under:-