S.K. Dhaon. - (1.) The order dated 16-5-1988 passed by the Electoral Registration Officer, Jaunpur, varying the age of petitioner from 31 years to 27 years and the order dated 20-5-1988 passed by the Additional District Magistrate acting as the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order dated 16-5-1988 are being impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Additional District Magistrate and the Electoral Registration Officer. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not been served. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that they are unnecessary parties as the appellate authority has recorded a finding that the electoral registration officer did not pass the order at the instance of Respondent No. 3 and 4 but acted suo moto. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally even though it has not been formally admitted.
(3.) It is now an admitted position that before the Electoral Registration Officer made a change in the age of the petitioner no opportunity was afforested to the petitioner. Such a contention was advanced by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It noted the argument but side tracked the issue and held that on merit the order of the Electoral Registration Officer was justifiable. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents the allegations have not been denied. On the contrary, it is stated that the allegations are not born out from the record.;