MUKESH KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 16.11.99. contained in Annexure -P -7 and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to include the name of the petitioner in the voters' list and allow him to participate in the Election of Nagar Panchayat, Kanker.

(2.) THE facts as have been unfolded arc that the petitioner was residing with his parents at village Govindpur, Tahsil Kanker, District Kanker. He shifted to Mahurbandpara Ward No.2, Kanker in April, 1999. He had informed about his new address to the Post Master, Main Post Office, Kanker. It is averred that the petitioner had sent a letter alongwith prescribed Form to the Assistant District Electoral Officer. Kanker to delete his name and the name of his wife from the voter list of Govindpur. After the notification of Nagar Panchayat was issued the petitioner and his wife submitted applications under the prescribed proforma under Rule 5(2) of M.P. Nagar palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for inc1usion of their names in village Kanker. The petitioner adduced evidence in support of his residence. The respondent No. 3 allowed the application by order dated 2.11.99 directed for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the voters' list of Ward No.2 Nagar Panchayat, Kanker. The respondent No.4 had neither raised any objection before the respondent No.3 nor was a party before the original authority. He preferred an appeal under Rule 6 of the Rules before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, the Collector, Kanker, issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing the parties and perusing the documents and taking note of the fact that the petitioner's name finds place in the voters' list of village Govindpur, District Kanker directed deletion of the name of the petitioner from the voter list of Ward No.2; Kanker, Nagar Panchayat.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sameer Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V.K. Shukla, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Seth has contended that as respondent No.4 had not filed his objection before the original authority the appeal at his instance was not entertainable. He has also urged that the order passed by the appellate authority is also unsustainable on merits inasmuch as the appellate authority has only taken note of the fact that the petitioner's name finds place in two voter lists.