AMRATBHAI D. RAVAL Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by this petition, is seeking appropriate writ for setting aside of the election held on 29.12.2011 of the Wards No.2 to 14 and 18 of Rajpur Gram Panchayat and it is prayed by the petitioner to direct the election authority to hold fresh election.

(2.) The short facts of the appear to be that the petitioners, who are 23 in numbers, are the residents of village Rajpura Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana and they are voters in different Wards on Rajpur Gram Panchayat and the also contested the election by filing their nomination forms, which was scheduled to be held on 29.12.2011. As per the petitioners, on 29.11.2011, Notification was published under Rule 9 read with Section 15 of the Act for declaring the elections of Gram Panchayat. As the election was to be held as per the petitioners, on 9.12.2011, they submitted application for getting voters' list and they were supplied all the voters' list on the same day by the respondent No.5. On 10.12.2011, the nomination forms were submitted by some of the petitioners for contesting the election, but in the said nomination forms, details were given of the respective candidate as per the serial number given, in the voters' list, which was supplied to the petitioners. The scrutiny of the nomination forms had taken place and their nomination forms were accepted. The case of the petitioners is that they bona fide believed the very voters' list to operate for the purpose of election. However, on the date of election on 29.12.2011 it came to the notice of the petitioners that there were large number of change in the voters' list inasmuch as the voters in a particular ward were transferred to various other wards and as a result thereof, the whole election as per the petitioners was vitiated. In any case, the voting as per the socalled revised voters' list had taken place and respondents No.6 to 19 came to be elected. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by the present petition.

(3.) We have heard Mr.Barot, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.Amit Shah, learned Counsel for respondent No.1, State Election Commission, Mr.Jayswal, learned AGP for respondents No.2 to 5 and Mr.Vaishnav, learned Counsel for respondents No.6 to 19. We have also considered the original file of respondent No.1, which has been made available by the learned Counsel, Mr.Shah appearing for respondent No.1.