KAUSHIK CHAKRABORTY Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General, Tripura, assisted by Ms. N. Guha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4.

(2.) BY this miscellaneous application, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

(3.) MR . Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners therefore, has emphasised that unless in the voter list the residential particulars of the elector are provided the voting paper with one identification envelope cannot be sent and if the election is carried out on the basis of the final electoral roll as published by the Returning Officer wide room for manipulation in the election process would be left open. He has also pointed out that by the subsequent notification, on misconstruction of the proviso to Rule 9(c)(ii) of the Tripura State Medical Council Rules, 2014, the Returning Officer has adopted a process in violation of the schedule of the election and also indulged in a procedure which would not only be irregular but would be patiently illegal. However that notification has not been challenged in this petition, nor a copy thereof has been placed in the petition.