Shyam Sunder vs State of Punjab and Others

A.L. Bahri, J.—Shyam Sunder challenges in this writ petition order dated May 30, 1991, (Annexure P/3) passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) exercising the powers'' of Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner against order of Revising Authority for including names of some of the persons in the voters list.

Programme for amendment of electoral rolls was published in April, 1991. Claims and objections were required to be filed on May 7, 1991 and May 16, 1991. The Revising Authority was required to dispose of the same by May 21, 1991. Revision, if any, under the rules was to be disposed of by May 31, 1991. About 133 persons filed claim after publication; of the preliminary electoral rolls for including their names therein. These claims were accepted by the Revising Authority. Shyam Sunder, petitioner, purported to have filed a revision before the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), who was exercising powers of the Deputy Commissioner. His revision was disposed of by the impugned order. Three reasons, were given in the impugned order Annexure P/3, which are as under :-

(1) Not in specified proforma.

(2) Not countersigned by another elector of the same ward.

(3) Objector absent.

The petitioner challenges this order inter alia on the grounds that principles of natural justice were not followed as no date of hearing was fixed and the order was passed in the absence of the petitioner. The other two grounds, mentioned therein, are also challenged as no specific proforma was required to be filled for filing the revision and the same was not required to be countersigned by another elector.

In the written statements filed, the validity of the order is maintained asserting that opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed.

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on grounds mentioned in the order, the same could not be sustained. However, we find that the revision filed by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer, who was exercising powers of the Deputy Commissioner, was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Rule 8-1 of the Punjab Municipal Election Rules, 1952 which is relevant, is reproduced as under :-

"8-I. Disposal of claims and objections :-On the date and at the place fixed under rule 8-H the Revising Authority shall-

(a) if he is satisfied as to the validity of any claim or objection allow it without further enquiry provided that if before any such claim or objection has been allowed a demand for inquiry has been made in writing to the Revising Authority by any person, it shall not be allowed without further inquiry ;

(b) hold a summary inquiry into every claim or objection which, is not disposed of under clause (a) and shall record his decision thereon;

(2) At the hearing the claimant or, as the case may be the objector and the person objected to and any other person who, in the opinion of the revising authority, is likely to be of assistance to him, shall be entitled to appear and be heard ;

(3) The revising authority may in his discretion;

(a) require any claimant, objector or person objected to appear in person, before him,

(b) require that the evidence tendered by any person shall be given on oath for the purpose;

(4) Any person aggrieved by any order passed under Sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) may, within three days, from the date of the order, apply to the Deputy Commissioner for revision and the Deputy Commissioner may as far as practicable within a week, confirm such order, or set aside or pass such order with respect to the claim or objection as he may deem fit.

(5) No appeal shall lie against the order passed under sub-rules (1), (2), (3) or (4) and the orders passed thereunder shall be final".

It may be stated that after the electoral roll, as it existed, is published the claims and objections could be filed, the Revising Authority could entertain the same and decide them after holding inquiry, if any, as contemplated under Rule 8-1 (a) and (b). Orders could be passed disposing of such claims and objections under rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 8-1. It is only against such orders that a person aggrieved could file an application before the Deputy Commissioner or his delegate, the Sub Divisional Officer, as in the present case. The question for consideration is as to who is the person aggrieved by the order passed under sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 8-T, as reproduced above. Obviously, the such persons were those who had approached the Revising Authority either for inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls and their request was declined or the objectors, whose objections were dismissed. Rule 4 is to be read alongwith sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) and not in isolation. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that any voter could file revision against orders passed under sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of rule 8-I, cannot be accepted. Even if the petitioner, as is argued, was contemplating to contest the elections, he cannot be considered, as a voter already registered, to be a person aggrieved by the orders passed under sub-rules (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 8-I. That being the position, there is no ground made out for interference with the impugned order (Annexure P/3). The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.