- (1.) This Rule and a number of Writ Petitions have been heard together as they involve common questions of law. Facts are not more or less disputed though the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners that there exists such insecurity that it is not possible for them to act when appointed as Presiding or Poling Officers in the ensuing election without facing the risk to their life or personal safety is contested and denied by the respondents. All the petitioners feel themselves aggrieved by the orders passed by the respective District Election Officers under section 26 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) appointing them against their will either as Polling Officer or as Presiding Officer in the ensuing election. They are all praying for an appropriate Writ for setting aside the said orders.
(2.) It would be sufficient if the facts and circumstances which led to the impugned order in the Rule itself are only set out in this decision.
(3.) On January 18, 1971, the District Election Officer, Howrah wrote a letter to the Divisional Accounts Officer, Easter Railway, Howrah asking from him a list of staff of his office who could be appointed as Presiding or Polling Officers. In answer to this letter the Divisional Accounts Officer on January 25, 1971, informed the District Election Officer that the staff serving under him expressed their unwillingness to discharge any function as Presiding or Polling Officer in view of insecure conditions prevailing in the State. On January 28, 1971, the Divisional Accounts Officer, however, sent names of eight persons who are willing to act as such. The District Election Officer was not satisfied with the same and he on February 2, 1971, wrote a letter to the Divisional Accounts Officer threatening him with prosecution if he fails to furnish a list of all employees serving under him. It is only under this compulsion that the District Accounts Officer sent on February 5, 1971 a complete list of employees. Immediately thereafter the employees themselves made a representation to the District Election Officer intimating their unwillingness to act as Polling or Presiding Officer on the same ground as referred to in the letter dated January 25, 1971 of the Divisional Accounts Officer. In spite of these representations on February 12, 1971 an order was passed under Section 26 (1) (3) of the said Act appointing the petitioner to be the Polling Officer at Dhandoli, Police Station Shyampore, District Howrah. It is this order which is the subject-matter of challenge in this Rule.;