RAJESH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions take exception to the Notification, dated 11th December, 2013 issued by the State Election Commission for conducting election to the office of Mayor of Municipal Corporation, Sagar. As per the said Notification, the date of polling is scheduled on 6th January, 2014. The principal grievance of the petitioner in the respective petitions, is that, deserving and eligible persons are being left out from the voters lists finalized in January, 2013. According to the petitioners, if the elections are to be held in January, 2014, in view of the provisions contained in the Act of 1956 read with the Rules of 1994, it is obligatory for the State Election Commission to revise the voters list to juxtapose with the time period during which bye-election for the post of Mayor of the Corporation is to be scheduled. Without following that procedure, it is not open to the State Election Commission to proceed with the election process. This argument is essentially founded on the provisions contained in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. Though the argument seems to be attractive at the first blush, taking into account the relevant provisions of the Act, amongst others, Section 9 and Section 14 of the Act of 1956 read with the provisions contained in Rules 4 and 8 of the Rules of 1994, we are in agreement with the submission of the Counsel for the respondents/State that in the fact situation of the present case, the issue will be governed by sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994. Inasmuch as the last final voters list was published on 1st January, 2013. Further, the casual vacancy arose on account of setting aside of the election of the returned candidate in terms of the decision of this Court, dated 3rd July, 2013. The fresh elections, however, could not be held because of the impending elections for the State Legislative Assembly, which concluded on 8th December, 2013. With the declaration of those results, the State Election Commission issued the subject Notification on 11th December, 2013 for filing in the vacancy of Mayor, which occurred due to setting aside the election of the then returned candidate. Viewed in this background, coupled with the fact that the process for holding elections were initiated by the State Election Commission during the same calendar year in relation to the first year of election, whereof the list has originally been prepared, by virtue of sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1994, the requirement of resorting to revision of voters list does not arise. It is a coincidence that the date of polling is scheduled in the following calendar year on 6th January, 2014. But, as the process for fresh election commenced during the same calendar year, the revision of voters list was not necessary.

(2.) As a result, we are not inclined to interfere and interdict the election process, which is already at the final stage. Petition is dismissed accordingly.