AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Sri K.N. Phanindra, the learned Standing Counsel is directed to take notice for the Respondent No. 4.
Sri Ponnana, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner''s grievance is over the rejection of the Petitioner''s application for transposition of his name from the voters'' list of Kushalanagar to the voters'' list of Mullusoge village. He submits that the Petitioner filed an application for transposition in Form No. 8A on 25.11.2010. Not to leave anything to chance, the Petitioner filed one more application on 03.12.2010. According to Sri Ponnanna as the application is only for transposition, no objections are required to be called for, He submits that the spot-inspection conducted by the officials of the Registration Officer reveals that the Petitioner is indeed residing in the territorial jurisdiction of Mullusoge village. He submits that no objections whatsoever are received on and subsequent to the filing of the application by the Petitioner on 25.11.2010 and 8.12.2010. The objections are filed by Sriyuts M.R. Govindaraj, Cheluvaraju, M.S. Shivanand, Ganapathi, Kumaraswamy and V. Kartheshan on 18.11.2010.
Sri H.T. Narendra Prasad, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that this petition is liable to rejected on the short ground of the availability of the alternative remedy provided by Section 24 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and Rule 27 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. He also takes serious exception to the Petitioner''s conduct of not arraigning the objectors as the Respondents to this petition.
Nextly, Sri Narendra Prasad strenuously contends that the mere claim of a party that he resides in a particular locality or village would not entitle him to be registered as a voter there, He is required to produce some supporting proof like ration card, telephone bills, etc.
In this regard, he brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 20(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1950, which states that a person shall not be deemed to be ordinarily resident in a constituency on the ground only that he owns, or is in possession of, a dwelling-house therein.
I do not propose to reject this petition on the ground of the availability of the alternative remedy or the non-joinder of the necessary parties because the infringement of the Rules in the impugned order is clearly discernable. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner has filed the applications only on 25.11.2010 and 8.12.2010. The earliest date on which the objections could have been filed is only 25.11.2010. This is a peculiar case in which the objections are filed even before the application is filed.
The perusal of the impugned order refers to the filing of the objections. The objections ought to have been rejected holding that they are premature, as no application whatsoever was filed or pending as on the date of the filing of objections (18.11.2010). As the parties, who have filed their objections prematurely on 18.11.2010, have not filed or re-filed their objections after 25.11.2010, I have no hesitation in holding that the their non-impleadment to these proceedings is not fatal.
On the short ground of the consideration of extraneous material (objections) the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly it is quashed. The Registration Officer is directed to reconsider the Petitioner''s applications dated 25.11.2010 and 8.12.2010 in accordance with law and to consider passing the fresh order on or before 2.00 p.m. on 20.12.2010, if possible.
This petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.