KRISHNADEO CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claiming himself to be a resident in the territorial constituency of Nagar Parishad, Madhubani is aggrieved by a notification dated 8.4.2007 contained in Annexure -3 by virtue of which the list of reserved and unreserved territorial constituency for Nagar Parishad of Madhubani has been published. By the said publication Ward Nos. 2 and 3 have been reserved for Scheduled Caste people.

(2.) CONTENTION of the petitioner is that by virtue of being resident of the constituency in question he is vitally affected by an arbitrary decision reserving Ward nos. 2 and 3 for scheduled caste people. The decision contained in Annexure -3 is in direct contrast of earlier notification contained in Annexure -1 where Wards Nos. 2 and 3 were not shown as a reserved constituency and the second notification contained in Annexure -3 is a motivated notification not based on actual fact. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State Election Commission where learned counsel has made submissions both on the maintainability of the writ petition as well as the merit of the case. With regard to maintainability it is urged at the bar that based on the notification contained in Annexure -3 elections have already been held. Prior to the publication and holding of the ejection objections had been invited and there was never any serious challenge to the notification contained in Annexure -3. After the election this writ application filed by the petitioner is only to serve his personal agenda rather than any serious local objection. Learned counsel further states that when the notification contained in Annexure -1 was issued large scaie of complaints were received by the State Election Commission that the population figures indicated in Annexure - 1. are erroneous and contrary to records. This led to an enquiry at the local level as well as at the level of Election Commission. The District Magistrate did acknowledge that due to pressure of work and otherwise there was an error in the population figure with regard to various wards which led to the first publication. The matter was required to be relooked and based on the said verification and figures of 2001 a notification reserving the various segments came be to issued vide Annexure -3.

(3.) CONTENTION on behalf of the respondent -State Election Commission seems to be correct on both counts. There is no explanation why the petitioner waited for the election to get over nor is there any answer on this fact as to why objection was not raised before the notification contained in Annexure -3 was issued, after re -examination of the complaints emerging from the constituency. If certain errors had crept into the figures which was found to be correct then in the opinion of the Court the authority did the right thing by notifying the constituency based on the population of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes available for the said constituency. It is too late in the day for this Court to seriously examine the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ application and grant him relief.