MUDI Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner contested election for the office of Pradhan of village Bhura, Tehsil Kairana, district Muzaffamagar which was held on June 23, 2000. In the said election 4.902 votes were cast out of which 308 votes were rejected as invalid. The petitioner secured 1,597 votes while Rishlpal, respondent No. 4 secured 1,752 votes and was accordingly declared to have been elected as pradhan. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for several reliefs' including a writ of quo warranto asking respondent No. 4 to show his authority to hold the office of pradhan, a writ of mandamus for restraining respondent No. 4 from functioning as pradhan of the village, a writ of mandamus commanding State Election Commission and District Returning Officer to hold fresh election to the office of pradhan of village Bhura in accordance with the revised electoral rolls after deleting names of those who were wrongly included in the electoral roll of the gaon sabha. Further relief has been sought praying that writ of mandamus be issued commanding the State Election Commission and the District Returning Officer to delete the names of all those persons whose names have been mentioned in Annexures-2 to 4 of the writ petition. Though the relief claimed in the writ petition has not been couched in such a language but in effect, the petitioner wants that the election of respondent No. 4 as pradhan be set aside and fresh election held.

(2.) Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that electoral roll of the gaon sabha, on the basis of which the election was held, was defective and fraudulent inasmuch as it contained names of large number of such persons who were either dead or were minors or were otherwise not eligible to vote in the election and, consequently, the result of the election had been materially affected and, therefore, the election of respondent No. 4 is liable to be set aside and a fresh election should be held after correcting the electorate roll.

(3.) In order to examine the contention raised, it is necessary to notice the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules made thereunder. Section 9 of the Act which deals with electoral roll for each territorial constituency was drastically amended by U. P. Act No. 9 of 1994. The relevant sub-sections of Section 9 of the Act which have a bearing on the controversy in hand are being reproduced below :