LexLAXMI KANT BAJPAI versus HAZI YAQOOB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2009) 16 (AODL.) S.C.R. 526 LAXMI KANT BAJPAI V. HAZI YAQOOB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4201 of 2008) DECEMBER 15, 2009 [D.K. JAIN AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Election Laws - Election to State Assembly- Challenged on the ground that electoral roll containing names from 21 C localities were in contravention of order of de/imitation - Election petition dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: Election not liable to be declared void - Electoral roll was prepared on the basis of delimitation order - Courts cannot decide any issue relating to issuance or revision of an D electoral roll - The remedy lies in the procedure laid down in the prescribed rules - In absence of a fresh order of de/imitation issued by delimitation Commission, Election Commission had no power to change the electoral roll for the constituency - Election petition also did not disclose any E material facts - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - ss. 100 (10)(d) (iii) and (iv); 9(1)(b), 30 and 80- Delimitation Act, 1972 - s. 11(1)(b) - Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1994 - ss. 11-8 and 11-C - Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - rr. 22 and 24 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 325. F Respondent No. 1 was elected to U.P. Legislative Assembly, from Meerut Assembly Constituency. Appellant (the defeated candidate) challenging his election, filed election petition before High Court. The plea of the election petitioner was that the election should be G declared void u/s. 100(1)(d) (iii) and (iv) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, as votes had been cast from 21 localities which were included in the constituency, in contravention of the published order of delimitation. High H Court dismissed the petition holding that the petition did 526 - LAXMI KANT BAJPAI v. HAZI YAQOOB & ORS. 527 not disclose any cause of action. Hence the present A appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Once an electoral roll is published, it becomes the final electoral roll of the constituency. B Therefore, the electoral roll containing the names of people residing in the 21 localities, is the final and valid electoral roll for the Meerut assembly constituency. The only alteration to the electoral roll can be brought about by following the procedure prescribed in the relevant C rules. [Para 17] [541-A-B] 1.2. Comparing Section 11(1)(b) of the Delimitation Act and Section 9(1 )(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, makes it amply clear that Section 11 0 , (1)(b) of the Delimitation Act further qualifies Section 9 - " (1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and provides for a clear restriction on the powers of the Election Commission in as much as the power of the - Election Commission shall not extend to changing the boundaries or areas or extent of any constituency. The E power of the Election Commission as envisaged in the above mentioned Sections, flows from the order published by the Delimitation Commission. Therefore, it ,,_ • 4 is clear that the power of delimitation of constituencies vests in the Delimitation Commission and the preparation of electoral rolls vests in the Election Commission. The communication dated 24.3.2007 by the Under Secretary F of the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, is merely a reiteration of the above provision. In the absence of a fresh order of delimitation G issued by the Delimitation Commission, the Election ' Commission had no power to change the electoral roll for the constituency. [Paras 23 and 24] [544-F-H; 545-H; 546- A-B] H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL) S.C.R. A Election Commission of India v. Mohd. Abdul Ghani 1995) 6 sec 721, relied on. 1.3. Section 11-B of Uttar Pradesh Municipalties Act, 1994 reveals that the State Government has the power to B break up every municipality into territorial constituencies to be called 'wards'. Section 11-C of the Act clearly empowers the State Government to alter or amend the ~ delimitation carried out earlier. There is no bar on the t. State Government to increase the area of a ward. Hence c it cannot be said that delimitation is to be carried out only by the Delimitation Commission as the notifications issued by the Delimitation Commission in 1973 and 1976 specify that the extent of 381 Meerut constituency shall be the same as the Meerut municipality. Had the intention of the Commission been to restri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.