Vilas Vitthal Sakhare & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

1. By the above Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek to challenge the fnal voters list prepared for the purpose of Hinjawadi Grampanchayat Election which is scheduled to be held on 15th January, 2021.

2. The reliefs sought in the above Writ Petition are as follows: "This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus and (a) Direct the Respondents to correct the draft voter's list and/or to prepare a corrected fnal voter's list for the Respondent No.6's general election; (b) Direct the Respondents to ensure that residents from outside the SSP Respondent No.6 are not added to the voter's list as also voters from the Gram Panchayat be shown in their rightful wards;

(c) Direct the Respondents to delete the voters shown from Sr. No.1

(d) Direct the Respondents to delete the names shown from Serial

Nos.343 to 534 in voter's list of Ward No.5 and same be included in (e) Direct the Respondents to remove the names added from outside gram panchayat area as enumerated at Exhibit O herein;"

3. The facts which are relevant for deciding the above Writ Petition are in brief set out hereunder: 3.[1] On 20th November, 2020 the Election Commission declared the programme concerning the fnaliiation of the draft voter's list. 3.[2] By another circular of the same date, further directions were given as to how the draft voter's list was to be fnaliied. 3.[3] As per the directions of the Election Commission, the voters list utiliied for the last State Assembly Elections for Maharashtra as updated upto 25th September, 2020, was to be considered for the preparation draft voter's list of the Respondent No.6. 3.[4] In exercise of the powers under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959, the State Election Commission has adopted the electoral roll SSP prepared for the assembly elections by the Election Commission of India under the Representation of People’s Act and 25th September, 2020 was fxed as the cut of date. The said electoral roll was divided into the wards of villages and the draft voter’s list was prepared. 3.[5] According to the Petitioners, they noticed several irregularities in the State Assembly Election Voter's list itself. 3.[6] On 3rd December, 2020 the Petitioner No.1 fled his objections with the Respondent No.5 i.e. the Tahsildar, Tal. Mulshi, Pune. 3.[7] The Petitioner No.2 also fled his objections on 7th December, 2020, pointing out how certain names should not be included in a particular ward, but should be included in another ward and the names incorrectly included in a particular Ward should be removed. 3.[8] The alleged irregularities were once again pointed out by the Petitioner NO. 1 vide his Letter addressed to the Tahsildar dated 10th December, 2020. 3.[9] Since no response was received, the Petitioners fled the above Writ Petition on 12th December, 2020 seeking reliefs as set out in paragraph 2 above.

3.10 The fnal voter's list was published on 14th December, 2020.

4. The Learned Advocate appearing for the State Election Commission on instructions from Mr. Hemant Naikwadi, Circle Ofcer, Hinjawadi, Tal. Mulshi, who is present in Court, states that the objections raised by the Petitioners have been SSP considered by the Sub-Divisional Ofcer and it is only thereafter, that the fnal list of voters has been published. In other words, the SDO did not fnd any substance in the objections of the Petitioners, and rejected the same. The Learned Advocate for the State Election Commission relying on a Notifcation dated 20th November, 2020, issued by the State Election Commission, particularly Clause 3(c) thereof, submitted that the State Election Commission is not empowered to delete/add any names on the ground of absenteeism, shifting, death of individual/s residing in a particular area/ward and the same has to be done by the Election Commission of India.

5. The Learned Advocate for the State Election Commission further submits that in the event of any person/s being aggrieved by the electoral roll prepared by the Election Commission of India for the purpose of elections to the State Legislature or Parliament, have to seek redressal of their grievance/s by following the procedure laid down under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 framed under the Representation of People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). The said Rules sets out the procedure for lodging claims, objections and the procedure to be followed for dealing with such claims and objections, interalia pertaining to inclusion of names inadvertently omitted from the electoral roll and deletion of names from the roll. Rule 22 deals with the fnal publication of electoral roll and Rule 23 provides for Appeals from Orders deciding claims and objections. The Learned Advocate for the State Election Commission has further submitted that an aggrieved person can also avail the required reliefs by SSP following the procedure prescribed in Section 15 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1959.

6. We accept the statement made by Mr. Hemant Naikwadi, Circle Ofcer, Hinjawadi, Tal. Mulshi, Pune, that they have considered the objections of the Petitioners and have thereafter proceeded with the fnal publication of the voters list on 14th December, 2020.

7. We also need to point out that Clause 1 of Article 243K of the Constitution of India pertains to Elections to the Panchayats and provides that, “the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in a State Election Commissioner consisting of a State Election Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.”

8. Article 243-O bars interference by Courts in electoral matters. The same is reproduced hereunder: “Article 243-O - Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters. - Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution – (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question eicept by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State.” SSP

9. The Supreme Court in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh V/s. State of U.P.1, interalia observed the importance of holding elections at regular intervals for panchayats, municipal bodies or legislatures and have proceeded to hold that no High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the tendency or efect of postponing an election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked. The relevant paragraphs of the said Judgment are reproduced hereunder: