K.P. NOUSHAD Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a person residing within the limits of the third respondent Municipality. It is stated by the petitioner that in the draft electoral roll prepared by the Electoral Registration Officer concerned for the ensuing election to the third respondent Municipality, 20 houses situated within the limits of Ward No.39 were shown by mistake as falling within the limits of Ward No.40. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a representation to the first respondent, the State Election Commission. The first respondent has forwarded the said representation, which is produced in the writ petition as Ext.P4, to the second respondent for appropriate action, and the second respondent has, in turn, forwarded the same to the Electoral Registration Officer concerned for further action. It is stated by the petitioner that on receipt of Ext.P4 representation, the Electoral Registration Officer has caused an enquiry to be made through the fourth respondent, the Municipal Engineer and the Municipal Engineer has reported that the houses referred to by the petitioner are situated within the limits of Ward No.39 and they have been mistakenly shown as situated within the limits of Ward No.40. It is stated by the petitioner that despite such a finding rendered by the fourth respondent, appropriate corrections have not been made in the electoral roll. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court for appropriate relief in this regard.

(2.) A statement has been filed by the first respondent in the matter. In the aforesaid statement, it is stated by the first respondent that Ext.P4 representation received from the petitioner has been promptly forwarded by the first respondent to the second respondent for appropriate action and the second respondent has, in turn, forwarded the said representation to the Electoral Registration Officer for further action. It is stated that the fourth respondent has though conducted an inspection, his report was not satisfactory as he himself was not able to arrive at a positive finding as to the location of the houses referred to by the petitioner. It is also stated in the statement that the Electoral Registration Officer, in the circumstances, sought directions from the first respondent and the first respondent has directed the Electoral Registration Officer to conduct a physical verification and take appropriate decision. It is stated that the Electoral Registration Officer, thereupon, inspected the houses along with the fourth respondent and found that the houses are in fact located within the limits of Ward No.40 itself and there is absolutely no mistake in this regard.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent as also the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent Municipality.