MANUBHAI TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a resident of Sagar Cantonment has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest litigation challenging the preparation of final electoral rolls of the Sagar Cantonment for elections to the Sagar Cantonment Board.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that the cantonments Act, 1924 was replaced by the new Cantonments Act, 2006 (for short, 'the 2006 Act') by Parliament. The 2006 Act was brought into force by notification dated 18-12-2006. Under Section 31 of the 2006 Act, the Central Government made and notified on 21-8-2007 the Cantonment Electoral rules, 2007 (for short 'the 2007 Rules' ). Thereafter the Sagar Cantonment Board undertook the demarcation of wards in Sagar cantonment in accordance with the 2007 rules. The petitioner filed his objection to the revision of the wards in the Sagar cantonment stating that there have been lot of encroachments resulting in increase of number of voters and that the encroachers have no right to be included in the electoral rolls. By order dated 12-9-2007; the Cantonment board, Sagar disposed of the objections holding inter-alia that the present exercise is only to fix the boundaries of wards and not to make the voter list and the petitioner may submit his objections at the time of preparation of the electoral rolls, which will be considered. Thereafter, the preliminary electoral rolls of the Sagar Cantonment were published by a notice on the office of the cantonment Board on 20-11-2007 but the petitioner did not file any objection to the inclusion of names of non-eligible persons in the electoral rolls and the final electoral rolls were published. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) AT the hearing, Mr. Adarsh Muni trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under section 28 of the 2006 Act, only a person who has resided in the Cantonment for a period of not less than six months immediately preceding the qualifying date shall be entitled to be enrolled as an elector. He submitted that Section 2 (zt) of the 2006 Act defines a 'resident' in relation to a Cantonment as a person who maintains therein a house or a portion of a house. He further submitted that in Union of India and others v. Dudh Nath prasad, (2000) 2 SCC 20 : (AIR 2000 SC 525), the Supreme Court relying on its earlier decision in Mst. Jagir Kaur and another v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521, has taken a view that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place would not be included in the meaning of the word 'reside'. He submitted that persons who do not have any residence in the Sagar Cantonment and have encroached in different places of Sagar cantonment or who are on training for a short period and are living in tents have been included in the electoral rolls of Sagar cantonment for elections to the Cantonment board. He further submitted that under Rule 4 of the Cantonment Land Administration rules, 1937, land in the Cantonment has been classified into Class 'a' land, Class 'b' land and Class 'c' land. He submitted that the occupants of Cantonment land specified as Class 'c' land and Class 'b-4' land cannot be included in the electoral rolls of the Cantonment and only those residents who were residing jn the area demarcated in the GLR of Survey of India are entitled to be included in the electoral rolls. He argued that the final electoral rolls have been prepared disregarding these provisions of Rule 4 of the Cantonment Land Administration rules, 1937 and persons who are not residents of the Sagar Cantonment and have a nomadic existence in the Sagar Cantonment have been illegally enrolled in the final electoral rolls of the Sagar Cantonment for elections to the Cantonment Board. He cited the decision in Chief Executive Officer v. Surendra Kumar Vakil and others, (1999) 3 scc 555 : (AIR 1999 SC 2294) in which a discussion of the provisions of the cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 finds place.