RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has framed a question of law, which according to the petitioner, is an important question of law and arises for consideration of the Court in this writ petition. The question of law formulated reads as under :-

(2.) UPON notice, the respondents filed reply, wherein facts have hardly been disputed. However, it is stated that a deputation of the residents of village Said Mubarakpur met the Commission on 23rd July, 2003 and complained that 120 votes were illegally and arbitrarily deleted from the basic electoral roll of the Gram Panchayat for the year 1998. This fact came to the notice of the candidates even on 29.6.2003, the date on which poll was held. The Sub- Divisional Magistrate-cum-Electoral Registration Officer, Batala had committed a lot of illegalities and no changes could have been made as per Section 31 of the Act, after filing of the nomination was over which was 29th June, 2003, as such, the competent authority was looking into the matter only to conduct inquiry for departmental purposes as well as for taking other action in the matter. They disputed the fact that attempt is to frustrate the election petition. The said Election Commission has issued notice to the S.D.M. and others for making out correction as the Commission felt strongly that deletion appears to have been made arbitrarily and without following due procedure laid down under law and without notice to the affected persons.

(3.) IT is not disputed before us that in the election petition filed by respondent No. 4 before the Election Tribunal, all the grounds including the wrongful deletion of 120 votes from the voter list have been taken. The matters are bound to be gone into in greater depth by the Election Tribunal, as the parties would be permitted to lead evidence in accordance with election laws. A summary procedure contemplated under Sections 31 to 34 of the Act is intended to achieve different object i.e. maintenance of the correct electoral roll rather than using the same as ground for election petition by an unsuccessful candidate. The State Election Commissioner, Punjab had written a letter dated 23.7.2003, Annexure P/3 to the writ petitioner, to the District Electoral Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, suo motu initiating an action on the basis that a deputation had met him and complained wrongful deletion of 120 votes from the list on 29.6.2003 and requiring him to produce the records before the said Commissioner on 24.7.2003. Vide Annexure P/4, the letter dated 28.7.2003 the same authority further directed the same officer as well as three other officers including the petitioner to appear on 29.7.2003 at 12.30 P.M. This letter was issued in continuation to the previous order and for ascertainment of further facts. We fail to understand why the Election Commissioner should act in that manner and in such haste. The jurisdiction of the State Election Commission comes to an end, upon conclusion of the process of election. Maintenance of electoral rolls under Section 15 of the Act is vested in the Electoral Registration Officer. Under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act the electoral rolls are to be prepared in the prescribed manner and published accordingly. Correction of the entries in the electoral rolls could be made by the Electoral Registration Officer. However, the orders passed by the Electoral Registration Officer are appealable under Section 33 of the Act to the Election Commission in the manner and within the time prescribed thereunder.