DIGAMBAR SADASHIV GHORPADE Vs. ELECTION REGISTRATION OFFICER AGRICULTURAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raise questions concerning the legality and validity of the final voters list published by the respondent No. 1 in respect of elections to two seats from the traders constituency to the respondent No. 3 Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as "a. P. M. C. , Kolhapur" or as "the Market Committee" ). Both these petitions seek to challenge the speaking order passed by him in his capacity as the Election Registration Officer for the A. P. M. C. , Kolhapur on 27th February, 2002, whereby the objections to the inclusion of the names of the 284 petitioners in the voters list came to be accepted, disentitling them to vote in the election to the traders constituency to the A. P. M. C. , Kolhapur. These petitioners principally contend that they were not given a personal hearing while arriving at the above decision and thus there is a violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the exclusion of the petitioners from the voters list is illegal and bad in law. Both these petitions therefore seek a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the order dated 27th February, 2002 passed by respondent No. 1 (at Exhibit J to the petition) directing deletion of these 284 names from the final list of voters.

(2.) AS against these submissions, it is the defence of the contesting respondents that the petitioners had no right to be included in the voters list since they did not qualify as traders eligible to vote, that they were sought to be inserted at the last moment at the instance of one interested candidate one Nandakumar Valanju, that the procedure followed while excluding their names was in compliance with the principles of natural justice and in fact it is the petitioners themselves who did not co-operate with the deciding authority. It is submitted that the petitioners have nowhere pointed out as to how on facts the order was bad or unjustified and as to how the petitioners were eligible voters. The impugned order is therefore stated to be correct on facts as well as on procedure. Alternatively, it is submitted that if necessary, once again a hearing be directed, but the petitioners themselves are not agreeable to this suggestion. As a second alternative submission, the contesting respondents submit that in any case, the writ Court is not the proper forum to raise these grievances and the petitioners have an alternate remedy to challenge the election by filing an election petition wherein they may raise the disputes that they have sought to raise in these petitions. On the other hand, the petitioner contend that the dispute with respect to the wrongful exclusion from the voters list cannot be raised in an election petition and the present writ petition is therefore a necessary remedy.

(3.) THE first petition, i. e. Writ Petition No. 1868 of 2002, is filed by 275 such voters who claim to have been illegally removed from the voters list. The second petition, i. e. Writ Petition No. 1176 of 2002, is filed by similarly excluded 9 more voters taking the number to 284. These 9 voters in the second petition contend that apart from being voters for the disputed election, they had a right to contest and wanted to contest the election which opportunity has been denied to them.