- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. This writ petition unravels the manipulations made by political rivals to overreach each other as candidates in the municipal elections, which would ultimately ensure the success of one and defeat of another. What troubles more is the involvement of the Executive Authority, the Deputy District Magistrate, Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur in this case, who has conveniently passed an order in favour of such smooth operators, who have succeeded in obtaining orders giving rise to the present writ petition.
(2.) THE controversy in this case centers around the preparation of the final electoral roll for the elections of the office bearers and members of the Municipal Board, Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur. THE challenge is by the petitioner, who describes himself as a prospective candidate to the post of Chairman of the Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj, to the order dated 7-8-2006, which was communicated vide letter dated 14-8-2006, by which the applications filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for exclusion and inclusion of certain names in the electoral roll have been decided. The Electoral Registration Officer, i. e. respondent No. 4 issued a draft electoral roll on 21-8-2005 and the petitioner, upon an application, procured a copy of the draft electoral roll on 16-9-2005. A public notice was issued by the Assistant Registration Officer on 4th May, 2006 stating therein that objections have been received in respect of deletion of 1469 names from the electoral list, the details whereof were already made available on the notice pasted on the Notice Board of the office of the Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj. The notice (Annex. 5) invited objections from persons whose names appeared in the said list by 12th May, 2006. The respondent No. 5 moved application way back on 19-9-2005 for exclusion of 1469 names and the petitioner claims to have moved some application on 16-5-2006 for inclusion of 96 names in the electoral rolls. The respondent No. 5 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 32692 of 2006 and the following order was passed finally disposing of the said writ petition on 29-6-2006 : "heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri M. K. Nigam for the Election Commissioner and Shri Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5. The allegation in the writ petition is that after the issuance of the notice dated 4-5-2006 the objections which had already been filed by the petitioner, have not been decided so far and there is nothing to indicate any such conscious decision having been taken. If that be so then the concerned authority is under a legal obligation to dispose of the said objection under the provisions of Section 12-B read with the U. P. Municipalities (Preparation and Revision of Electoral Roll) Rules, 1994. In view of this, let the respondent No. 4 proceed to dispose of pending objections as alleged by the petitioner preferably within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him after taking into consideration all the material on record and all such other objections taken in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. "
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court indicates that the matter was disposed of without entering into the merits of the claim calling upon the authority concerned to dispose of the objections in accordance with law within a period of three weeks of the production of the same. Consequent upon the aforesaid direction, the objections raised by the petitioner have been rejected vide order dated 7-8- 2006 and the objections filed by respondent No. 5 have been allowed by deleting the names of 1469 voters from the electoral roll. The said order was communicated to the petitioner on 14-8- 2006, giving rise to the present writ petition.;