KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged order dated 7.2.2012 passed by respondent No. 4, dismissing his objections and the order dated 23.2.2012 passed by respondent No. 5 whereby the appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) THEREAFTER , in the Electoral Roll published in the year 2011 for the Legislative Assembly Elections, the aforesaid 18 persons were again shown in Ward No. 2 and besides them 7 new names were also included in Ward No. 2. The list of 25 persons mentioned in the Legislative Assembly Elections Rolls in the year 2011, is reproduced as under: -

(3.) ONE Anil Kumar applied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 17.1.2012 and obtained certified copies of the ration cards of the aforesaid persons in which they have been shown to be the actual residents of Ward No. 2. The petitioner also informed the President of Municipal Committee Ateli Mandi vide letter dated 21.2.2012 that the aforesaid 25 persons are permanent residents of Ward No. 2. It is also pertinent to mention that on 27.1.2012, 25 complaints in prescribed Form -B were lodged before the Revising Authority appointed under Rule 8 of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978 [for short 'the Rules'] for wrong inclusion of the names of the said 25 persons in Ward No. 3 in the Electoral Roll published in the year 2012 but the Revising Authority dismissed the objections vide impugned order dated 7.2.2012. The petitioner challenged his order by way of Statutory Appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, who also vide his order dated 23.2.2012 dismissed the appeal. However, it is alleged that before passing the order, the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Revenue Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate to give report as to whether the aforesaid 25 persons are residents of Ward No. 2 or 3 regarding which the Sub Divisional Magistrate had given his report on 22.2.2012 alleging that the aforesaid 25 persons are residents of Ward No. 2.