MANISHA VEKTA Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1, intends to contest the forthcoming elections, to, the office, of, Pradhan Gram Panchayat, Derighat. Petitioners No. 2 and 3, are stated, on affidavit, to be her voters. However, in the revised electoral rolls, hence published by respondents No. 3 and 6, the names of all the writ petitioners, are, excluded, from, the apposite voters' list. The finalization of the voters' list, occurred in the month of November, 2020, and thereat the excluded, from the voters' list, hence, voters, were asked to make scribed representation(s), against their exclusion(s), rather before respondents No. 3 and 6. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners, submits that, though all the writ petitioners, personally appeared before respondent No. 6, and also were, assured, that the electoral rolls would become revised, however, the afore, has not been done, thereupon, the writ petitioners become excluded, from the electoral rolls, and concomitantly whereupon, all the petitioner(s) are excluded respectively, from either participating in the elections, to be conducted, to the office of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat concerned, or are barred from casting their ballots.

(2.) Mr. Vikrant Chandel, the learned Deputy Advocate General, and, Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, the learned counsel, respectively appearing for the respondents concerned, draw the attention of this Court, towards the decision(s) rendered, by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, today (02.01.2021), upon, CWP No. 6421 of 2020, titled as Shimlo Devi vs. HP State Election Commissioner and ors. , and CWP No. 6427 of 2020, titled as Akhtar Hussain And Anr vs. HP State Election Commission And Ors , wherein similar hereat espousal(s), become(s) discountenanced. Consequently, they argue that the extant writ petition, inconsonance therewith, also warrants dismissal.

(3.) Though, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, contends that, the dismissal of the afore writ petitions, by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, becomes anviled, on, the trite anchor of, the therein writ petitions, making representation(s) against their exclusion(s), from the voters' list, rather beyond the timeline, prescribed for the relevant purpose, whereas, the writ petitioners herein, orally made representation(s), within, the prescribed timeline, for the afore purpose, hence therethrough a distinction, becomes aroused, inter se the facts, in those writ petitions, and, the facts at hand, hence, the afore decisions, rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, do not encapsulate, the apt binding ratio decidendi, for this Court, also taking a likewise decision. However, the making of a mere oral representation(s), is/are not sufficient, for enabling the counsel for the writ petitioners, to, escape from the rigour, of, the apt ratio decidendi, set forth, in the decisions (supra), made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, (a) imperatively, when prescriptions are made, in the relevant guidelines, that, upon exclusion(s), of, the aspirant(s) concerned, or voter(s) concerned, from the apposite voters' list, they are to make scribed representations, and that too, within the prescribed timeline, hence before the authority concerned. Scribed representation(s) whereof, are hereat, not apparently made, hence for the relevant purpose, before the authority concerned. Consequently, even if the writ petitioners, were issued voters' identity cards, under the seal(s) and signature(s), of, the validly constituted authority, and, yet when they became excluded, from the electoral rolls, hence may prima facie make rendered untenable, their exclusions, from the democratic process, (i) nonetheless, when for all the afore stated reasons, the judgment (supra), rather settling the afore controversy, thereupon, the mere holding, of, voters' identity card(s), disable(s) the writ petitioners, to participate in any manner, in the relevant democratic process. For the afore reasons, this Court is constrained, not to grant, the espoused relief(s) to the writ petitioners.