KONTHOUJAM INGOCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three writ petitions, involving a common question of law, were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. Whether the deletion from or inclusion in the electoral roll of a particular constituency of a name before the last date of filing nomination paper for election to the Zilla Parishad to be conducted under the provisions of Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 can be ordered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is the common question of law involved in these writ petition.

(2.) BEFORE proceeding further, I may briefly refer to the facts of the three cases. In WP(C) No. 439 of 2012, the petitioner is intending to contest the forthcoming election to the Zilla Parishad and Gram Panchayat. The last date for filing nomination is 3 -8 -2012. He is seeking the intervention of this Court to order the deletion of the names of some voters of Village No. 3 -Poiroutongba Tangkhul, 7 - Karpur Sungba Kabui and No. 8 Lemba Khul at Annexures -A/2, A/3 and A/4 of the Notification dated 20 -6 -2012 on the ground that these voters are also included in the electoral roll for Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, though these villages have been excluded from the purview of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act under Section 1(2) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ("the Act" for short). In WP(C) No. 441of 2012, the petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of the names of voters of Phunam Maring and Chingdong Kabui in the electoral roll for the ensuing election to the Zilla Parishad even though these villages are also included in the electoral roll for the Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, which is also excluded from the purview of the Manipur Panchayati Raj in terms of Section 1(2) of the Act. In WP(C) No. 444 of 2012, the petitioner is aggrieved by non -inclusion of her name in the electoral roll for 4 -Khudrakpam Gram Panchayat of the Zilla Parishad Constituency. She was earlier enrolled as a voter of 36 -Wabgai Constituency, but after marriage, she shifted the house of her matrimonial home under Khundrakpam A/C constituency: her name has already been deleted from the electoral roll of 36 -Wabgai Constituency. However, her request for inclusion of her name in the electoral roll for 1 -Khundrakpam A/C has been turned down.

(3.) BOTH Mr. Th. Manihar, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 439 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 441 of 2012 and Mr. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 444 of 2012 on the one hand and Mr. S. Nepoleon, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State -respondents, on the other hand, have been extensively heard by me. It is the contention of Mr. Th. Manihar, the learned counsel that under Section 1(2) of the Act, it is clearly provided that the provisions of the Act extends to the whole of Manipur excepting any area to which the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Act, 1971 ("District Council Act" for short) or the Manipur (Village Authorities in Hill Areas) Act, 1956 extends, and the inclusion of the names of person of the villages who are already included in the electoral roll for the Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council is thus in contravention of Section 1(2) of the District Council Act and Sections 17 and 18 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 ("RPA") which prohibit the registration of a person in the electoral roll for more than once and the registration of a person more than once in any constituency and should be declared as illegal. Though the last date for filing a nomination paper for election to the Zilla Parishad is scheduled for 3 -8 -2012, according to the learned counsel, under Section (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, deletion or inclusion of such entries is permissible till the last date for filing nomination: it is thus not too late in the day for this Court to interfere at this stage to correct such gross violation of law. In WP(C) No. 444 of 2012 (Smt. Wangjam Tombi Devi v. State of Manipur and others), drawing my attention to the decision dated 25 -7 -2012 of this Court in WP(C) No. 417 of 2012, Mr. M. Devananda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that as the application of the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the said electoral roll has not been disposed of, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider her application and dispose of the same in accordance with law. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court in P.T. Rajan v. T.P.M. Sahir, 2003 8 SCC 498to contend that correction by way of amendment, transposition or deletion of the entry can be made till 3 P.M. of the date specified for filing of nomination. Mr. H. Napoleon, the learned State counsel, however, controverts those contentions by submitting that the exercise of deletion or inclusion of names in the electoral roll necessarily involves enquiry by the Electoral Registration Officer, which cannot be completed before the last date of filing nomination. Moreover, contends the learned counsel, the petitioner has a statutory remedy under Section 24 of the RPA to prefer an appeal against erroneous entry in the electoral roll, and the writ petition filed by the petitioners, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, are not maintainable: they should be relegated to the appellate authority to ventilate their grievance.