RAJENDRA RAI Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an election process, when it has commenced can be interdicted, retarded or interfered within exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and whether an order of the Chief Electoral Officer seeking confirmation in respect of the modifications of the order passed by the Election Commissioner of India which is not final can be assumed to have become final and whether, under the circumstances of the present case, the petitioner can be said to be entitled to any relief sought for, are the short but significant questions that fall for determination in the present writ application by one Rajendra Rai, who is a voter of 9-Vaishali Parliamentary Constituency and he is also the President of Zila Janta Dal Vaishali.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the electoral roll of the Vaishali Parliamentary Constituency (in short, the Constituency) was revised under S. 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (in short, 'the Act') and the same was also approved by the Election Commissioner of India. The voter list was also re-printed and rearranged. Under Section 25 of Representation of 'the People Act, 1951 (in short, 'the 1951 Act') the District Election Officer, Muzaffarpur and Vaishali published the list of the polling stations in respect of the Constituency. There are 6 assembly constituencies out of which four are situated in Muzaffarpur and the remaining two in Vaishali Districts. A message was received from the Election Commissioner on the 13th April, 1994 indicating that the election be held according to the existing list of polling stations, the area and number of which correspond to their electoral roll part number revised with reference to 1-1-1994. But in those cases where approval has already been communicated and the rolls have been rearranged and re-printed after following the procedure prescribed above the newly approved polling stations may be used. The confirmation of the action be taken (Annexure 1 to the writ petition). Thereafter on l5th April 1994 a letter was written by the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna addressed to the Secretary, Election Commission of India (Annexure 2) stating that even though electoral rolls have been rearranged and reprinted, the procedure under Section 21(3) of the Act has not been followed. Consequently, in view of the instructions dated 13th April 1994 (Annexure 1) the confirmation of the Election Commissioner was sought for holding the bye-election of the Constituency according to the old polling stations. It is Annexure 2, the letter of the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar, Patna seeking confirmation from the Election commissioner that even though the electoral rolls have been rearranged and re-printed but the procedure under Section 21(3) of the Act was not followed, it should be quashed in the present petition by issuing a writ of certiorari and the next relief is that the election of the Parliamentary Constituency be held in accordance with the new polling stations.

(3.) Mr. Ganga Prasad Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order letter dated 15-4-94 was manifestly erroneous inasmuch as the electoral rolls have been rearranged and reprinted hence election is to be held on the basis of the new polling station and on the basis of the electoral roll finally published on 12-3-1994. The reliefs sought for in the present petition could not be obtained in an election petition to be filed by the petitioner under Section 81 of the 1951 Act taking the ground specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100. Consequently, the letter sent by the Chief Electoral Officer (Annexure 2) be quashed. Reliance was placed on Pampakavi Rayappa Belagali V.B.D. Jatti and others (AIR 1971 SC 1348) and Shri Shreewant Kumar Choudhary v. Shri Baidyanath Panjiar (AIR 1973 SC 717).