AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, Ag.C.J.
These appeals assail the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 05.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 17250-54/2011 and 17256/2011 (APMC). whereby the voters list as well as the election notification insofar as it relates to Constituency No.7. Chikkabasur and the additional voters'' list of agriculturists from Chikkabasur Constituency was quashed. It had been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that the electoral process had reached final stage of casting ballots on the following dates:
The voters list was prepared on 06.01.2011 and finalised on 11.03.2011.
Notification for holding election was issued on 21.04.2011.
The calendar of events was issued on 24.04.2011
and election was scheduled on 11.05.2011
Petition was filed on 04.05.201 1.
Obviously, the learned Single Judge had acted on the statement made by the Additional Advocate General that there appears to be some lapses in the preparation of the additional voters'' list for the said Constituency. The legal position so far as interfering with the electoral process is concerned, it is in the formulating entrenchment and it appears that no contrary opinion is expressed in Boddula Krishnaiah and another -vs- Boddula Krishnaiah and another Vs. State Election Commissioner, A.P. and others, , after analyzing N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others, , State of U.P. and others etc. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti and others etc., , Lakshmi Charan Sen -vs- A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman ( AIR 1985 SC 1233) and the legal principles were crystallised in these words:
Thus it would be clear that once an election process has been set in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have already entertained the writ petition, it would not be justified in interfering with the election process giving direction to the Election Officer to stall the process or to conduct election process afresh, in particular when election has already been held in which the voters were allegedly prevented to exercise their franchise. As seen, that dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy is thus available at law for redressal.
This is exactly the position, which ensues before us inasmuch as the impugned order prevented the culmination of the electoral process by interdicting casting of ballots.
The appeals are allowed. The impugned order is set aside and it is directed that the electoral process shall continue from the stage where it was restrained. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri District, as well as the Tahsildar and Returning Officer. Bydagi Taluk, shall take steps for balloting in the said Constituency, forthwith.
There shall be no order as to costs.