RAM LALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satendra Kumar Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that despite of their request for providing a helper of their own choice for casting their vote, the Assistant District Election Officer, respondent no. 4 has said that the petitioners may cast their vote by giving necessary instruction to the returning officer as provided under rule 24 (7) of U. P. Zila Yojna samiti Niyamawali, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "rules, 2008" ). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that rule 16 provides that the election shall be held on secret ballot basis but by permitting the petitioners to cast their vote through returning Officer, secrecy of their vote would be lost and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No, 4 is illegal. He further contended that Rule 24 (7) is ultra vires of Rule 16 of Rules, 2008.

(3.) WE do not find any substance in the submission. The petitioners claim to be illiterate voters and, therefore, it appears that they requested the respondent No. 4 to provide helpers of their own confidence to cast their vote in the election of President, Zila panchayat which is going to be held on 11-4-2008. The said request of petitioners was not consistent with Rule 24 (7) of Rules, 2008 and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 has not accepted the same in the manner it was requested by the petitioners but they have been permitted to cast their vote in the manner it is provided in Rule 24 (7), which reads as under:. . (Vernacular Mmatter Omitted ). .