1. The appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 20 May 2017, passed by Election Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Ghaziabad, in Election Petition No.1 of 2016 (Shatrujeet Singh v. Krishan Veer and others).
2. The appellant instituted a petition under U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam 1961(hereinafter referred to as ''Adhiniyam 1961'') read with Kshettra Panchayat ( Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Dispute) Rules 1994, assailing the election of opposite party no.1 as Pramukh of Blok Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad.
3. The facts briefly pleaded in the election petition is that the first respondent is a highly connected being a member of the ruling party, therefore, exercised pressure upon other members, thus prohibiting them from filing nomination for the election to the post of Pramukh, as a result, he was elected unopposed on 7 February 2016. It is further alleged that the first respondent was elected member of Block Development Committee (B.D.C) on 16 October 2015 against the provisions of Rules. It is alleged that the first respondent is not a member of village Bhadaula under Development Block Bhojpur, further, is on the electoral roll from several other constituency in district Hapur.
4. The first respondent entered appearance by filing written statement contending that he had already made an application before the District Election Officer on 9 September 2015 for deleting his name from the voter list of Nagar Palika Parishad, Hapur and voter list of assembly constituency.
5. The Tribunal on pleadings of the parties framed two issues:
- (1) Whether nomination and election of opposite party no.1 to the post of of B.D.C and Block Pramukh is void?
- (2) Whether the appellant-petitioner had cause of action in filing the election petition?.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the election of first respondent is void by operation of law on he being registered in the electoral roll from several places in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 and 13 of Adhiniyam 1961 read with Section 9 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''Panchayat Raj Act'').
8. Learned counsel, appearing for the first respondent would submit that the point in issue is no longer resintegra. The point stands concluded by several decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court.
9. The point for determination is as to whether the election of the first respondent can be said to be void abinitio merely for the reason that his name is entered in the electoral roll at several places/constituency.
10. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute.
11. Section 17 of the Adhiniyam 1961 provides for establishment of Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat for each district. Section 6-B provides for electoral rolls for Kshettra Panchayat which shall consist of the electoral rolls prepared under Section 9 of the Panchayat Raj Act. Section 18-B provides for electoral roll for Zila Panchayat.
12. Section 9 of Panchayat Raj Act, provides for preparation of electoral roll for each territorial constituency in accordance with the provision of Act and Rules made therein under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission.
13. Upon preparation of electoral roll referred to in subsection (1) and upon its publication, subject to any alteration, addition or modification made in accordance with the Act and Rule made there-under, be the electoral roll for that territorial constituency prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
14 .Sub-section (4) provides for disqualification of a person for registration in an electoral roll, if he
- (a).
- (b).
- (c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections.
16. Sub-section (7) provides no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if his name is entered in any electoral roll pertaining to any city, municipality or cantonment, unless he shows that his name has been struck off such electoral roll.
17. In exercise of powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 9 and Section 10 of the Panchayat Raj Act, the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994, was framed.
18. Rule 2(e) defines "roll" which means the electoral roll for a territorial constituency of a Gram Panchayat.
19. Rule 5 provides for preparation of rolls by the Electoral Registration Officer.
20. Rule 8 provides for publication of rolls in draft.
21. Rule 10 provides for objections to entries in the roll by any person whose name is entered in the roll of a territorial constituency of a Gram Panchayat and who objects to the inclusion of the name of any other person in the roll on the ground that he is not qualified or has been disqualified to be registered in such roll, may apply in Form 4 to the Assistant Electoral Registration Officer for correction of the particulars, or exclusion of the name, as the case may be.
22. It is evident from the provisions of Adhiniyam 1961, Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules framed thereunder that a complete mechanism is provided for preparation of rolls, which is subject to any objection, complaint regarding entry/deletion of names in the rolls. Appeal is provided to an aggrieved person. Upon publication of electoral roll, finality is attached to the rolls, which is not subject to challenge before civil court. A wrong entry in the rolls is not a disqualification to contest election, nor any correction, deletion or addition can be made after the last date of nomination for election and before the completion of election.
23. Section 27 of the Adhiniyam, 1961 provides for settlement of disputes as to membership or disqualification.
24. Sub-section (1) provides that the dispute, if any, arises as to whether a particular person is a member of the Zila Panchayat under clause (a) of Section 18, the dispute shall be referred in the manner prescribed.
25. Sub-section (2) provides that the dispute that could be referred in the event such a dispute arises as to whether a person--
- (a) has been lawfully chosen a member of a Zila Panchayat under Section 18; or
- (b) has ceased to remain eligible for being chosen a member of the Zila Panchayat for the purpose of Section
27. Sub-section (4) of Section 18-C provides for disqualification of a person for registration in an electoral roll which, inter alia, disqualifies a person from enrolment; if for the time being he is disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections. It is not the case of the petitioner that the first respondent is disqualified from voting, as no instance of disqualification for any corrupt practice or any other offence was pleaded. The only plea that was taken was that the first respondent was on the rolls from two places.
28. Sub-section (6) of Section 18-C prohibits registration of a person in electoral roll for more than one territorial constituency, and sub-section (7) prohibits entitlement of a person from being registered in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency if his name is entered in any electoral roll pertaining to any city, municipality or cantonment, unless his name is struck off from such electoral roll, Sub-section (8) read with sub-section 12 would attach finality to electoral roll, duly prepared and upon final publication. The jurisdiction of civil court to entertain or adjudicate upon the question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll is barred.
29. It is evident from the statutory provisions that preparation of electoral roll is distinct and a separate mechanism, which attains finality upon publication. The roll, thereafter, is immune from challenge at a subsequent stage. Thereafter, entries in the roll cannot be questioned before a court; the same entries, therefore, cannot be a ground to declare the election of the returned candidate void. Only two grounds have been provided under Rule 6 on which election petition can be filed; (1) the choosing of a person is void; and (2) the concerned member ceased to remain eligible for such membership. Therefore, inclusion of a person from two constituencies or from municipality, city could render an election automatically void, is not the mandate of the statutory provisions.
30. Division Bench of this Court in Modi v. State Election Commissioner, 2001 ACJ 419, while considering the provisions of U.P. Panchayat Raj ( Registration of Electors Rules), 1994, framed under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act held that the provisions of the Act and the Rules, thus, provide a complete safeguard against any wrong inclusion or wrong omission of name in the electoral roll. After publication of the final roll, the same is immune from any challenge at a subsequent stage. Once the process of election has begun they can neither be challenged by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution nor in an election petition filed under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act.
31. The Supreme Court in Shyamdeo Pd Singh v. Nawal Kishore Yadav, 2000 (8) SCC 46; Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B.Raju, 1974 (3) SCC 415, and Laxmi Kant Bajpai v. Haji Yaqoob, 2010 (4) SCC 81, has held that finality of electoral rolls, cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations. After that the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification provided under section 16 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the decision of Supreme Court relied upon is under the Representation of People Act 1951, therefore, would contend that sub-section (7) and Section (9) of Panchayat Raj Act would mandate that no person is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for any territorial constituency, if his name is entered in any electoral roll pertaining to any city, municipality or cantonment, unless he shows that his name has been struck off such electoral roll, therefore, his enrolment and election as B.D.C. member and thereafter, as Block Pramukh is void by operation of law. I am unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant in the backdrop of the foregoing discussion.
33. For the reasons stated herein above, I do not find merit in the appeal, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
No costs.
