- (1.) THESE are two writ petitions which challenge the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer (Graduates Constituency) U. P. Lucknow in preparing the Electoral Roll for the aforesaid election of the Council which are likely to be held some times in this year. One petition is filed by Sri Hari Shankar Jain, a practising advocate of this Court namely writ petition No. 999 of 2008 (M. B.) and he has argued the matter in person. The other writ petition has been filed by Sri Sudarsha Avasthi and that petition has also been argued by Sri Hari Shankar Jain.
(2.) A short counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate/assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Lucknow in the writ petition filed by Sri Sudarsha Avasthi to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Since the questions involved in both the writ petitions are common, therefore the parties have given out that the affidavits exchanged in the writ petition of Sudarsha Avasthi, may be taken into consideration even in the writ petition filed by Sri Hari Shankar Jain. The petitioners in the writ petitions have not raised any individual grievance about their non- registration as elector, in the Electoral Roll in the coming election of Graduates Constituency, nor there is mention of any name or of any person who has been denied the registration as elector for any of the reasons on which the petitions are being pressed. Clarifying the stand of the petitioners, Sri Hari Shankar Jain, stated that it is a Public Interest Litigation and for a larger public interest as the voters who are eligible for being enrolled as elector have been deprived of their right to get themselves enrolled for want of necessary procedure being adopted by the Commission and therefore, even if no individual prejudice is caused to the petitioners, the petitions being for the interest of many more persons who are not before the Court, are maintainable. Challenging the action of the Electoral Registration Officer it has been pressed that under the Rules it was necessary to issue public notice on or before 1st October, 2007 calling upon the persons entitled to be registered in that Roll to send or; deliver at his office before 7th day of November, 2007 (Wednesday) i. e. by the 6th November, 2007) Tuesday at the latest or, application in Form No. 18 and 19 as the case may be. But this notice was never published in the News Papers much less in the given format, as a result of the aforesaid failure on the part of the Electoral Registration Officer, the persons who were entitled to be enrolled as elector did not get sufficient opportunity, which was a mandatory requirement under the aforesaid Rules nor the time schedule given therein was followed. Also the republication in the News Papers was not done as required.
(3.) FURTHER argument is that the application forms No. 18 and 19 as the case may be were not collected/received in the office of Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer but. they were received in the office of the designated officers which was not permissible under the Rules and lastly it has been argued that the forms were accepted in bulk, whereas the form was to be submitted individually and that the application forms in some cases did contain either at the top or at the bottom the names of the persons who are prospective candies for contesting election which disentitles them from getting enrolled as electors. It has also been alleged that in the manner in which the matter is being preceded with and the way in which the application forms have been accepted is a clear design and concerted effort to rig the election and it has the effect of rigging of election before hand i. e. even before the elections take place.;