SHETHNA, J. - (1.) SHARIF Mohd. Jabar Khan, Musted Khan are sons of one Gulam Mohd. and their wives, Ilaichi Bano, Batul Bano and Shahida Bano-petitioners have filed these six separate petitions before this Court and challenged the common order dated 1. 1. 2000 passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh in appeal No. 116/99 to 121/99 filed by private respondent Subhash Chandra in all these petitions, whereby, the learned Collector accepted the appeals filed by Subhash Chandra and quashed and set aside the order passed by the S. D. M. Nohar and directed to delete the names of petitioners from voter list of ward No. 5 of chak 22 N. T. R. Tehsil-Nohar District Hanumangarh.
(2.) ALL these petitions are disposed of by this common order as the common point is involved in all these matters and the impugned order dated 1. 1. 2000 is also same. Learned counsel Shri Vijay Bishnoi for the petitioners submitted that learned Collector was wrong in allowing the appeals filed by the private respondent-Subhash Chandra and ordering deletion of the names of the petitioners from the voter list of ward No. 5 chak 22 N. T. R. Tehsil-Nohar. He submitted that there is a voluminous evidence in favour of all the petitioners to show that they were bonafide residents of ward No. 5, chak 22 N. T. R. and when the S. D. M. , Nohar after appreciating the documentary evidence led before him passed the order of including the names of all the petitioners in the voter list of ward No. 5 of chak 22 N. T. R. , Tehsil-Nohar, the learned Collector ought not to have interfered in appeal filed by private respondent-Subhash Chandra, who had no locus standi. Mr. Bishnoi has vehemently relied upon the document Annex. 8 dated 31. 1. 1995 annexed to the writ petition No. 229/2000 filed by the petitioner Sharif Mohd. The said document is election certificate issued by the election officer which shows that he was elected member of ward No. 5 of chak 22 N. T. R. , Tehsil-Nohar. He submitted that even today petitioner Sharif Mohd. is continuing to be a Panch of ward No. 5. He, therefore, submitted that this material document was not properly considered by the Collector while allowing the appeals filed by the private respondent. It may be stated that when all these petitions were placed before me for orders on 20. 1. 2000, learned counsel Shri Bishnoi was orally directed to supply copy of the petition to Mr. R. L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General. Accordingly, Mr. Jangid appeared for the respondent State Govt. in all these matters. He has placed on record the common judgment and order dt. 17. 8. 1999 passed by the District Collector, Hanumangarh on an appeal filed by the present petitioners alongwith other persons. It is interesting to note that present petitioners preferred appeals before the District Collector, Hanumangarh stating that they were the permanent residents of chak 23 N. T. R. and, their names were also included in the voter list of 1998. Not only that identity cards were also issued in their favour, but because of political rivalry, Patwari submitted false report and without giving them an opportunity their names were excluded from the voter list of chak 23 N. T. R. It also appears from the order dated 17. 8. 99 passed by the District Collector that Gulam Mohd. , father of petitioners Sharif Mohd. Jabar Khan, Musted Khan and others are the members of one family and they were permanent residents of chak 28 N. T. R. which was in Ramsara Panchayat reserved for Scheduled Tribe, therefore, they got their names registered in the voter list of chak 22 N. T. R. It was found that their ration card was also of Nohar. Alongwith the same there is a report of Patwari also. Thus, it is clear from the common order dated 17. 8. 99 passed by the Collector, Hanumangarh that they were residents of chak 28 N. T. R. It is interesting to note that none of the present petitioners challenged the said order dated 17. 8. 99 passed by District Collector, Hanumangarh rejecting their appeals from excluding their names from the voter list of chak 23 N. T. R. It appears that, thereafter, the petitioners have successfully managed with S. D. O. and got their names included in the voters list of Gram Panchayat 22 N. T. R. against which appeals were filed by Subhash Chandra before the District Collector, Hanumangarh and same were allowed by common impugned order dated 1. 1. 2000. From the impugned order dated 1. 1. 2000, it is clear that petitioners are in habit of changing their names in the voters list of one Panchayat to other Panchayat. There is also a specific reference regarding the earlier order dated 17. 8. 99 passed by District Collector, Hanumangarh in appeals filed by present petitioners against deleting their names from the voters list of chak 23 N. T. R. After considering the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence, if the learned Collector found that the names of the petitioners were wrongly included in the voters list of Gram Panchayat 22 N. T. R. by S. D. O. , therefore, if he has passed the order to delete the names of petitioners from the voters list of Gram Panchayat 22 N. T. R. by setting aside the order passed by the S. D. O. then this Court will not interfere with such order. It may be stated that learned counsel Shri Bishnoi has taken me through all the documents annexed with the petitions and tried his best to persue me to consider it and to arrive at a different conclusion. However, I am not sitting in appeal over the decision/order dated 1. 1. 2000 passed by the District Collector, Hanumangarh. All these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and in writ jurisdiction this Court cannot sit in appeal over the said decision and re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a different conclusion, that is not the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) AFTER carefully going through the common impugned order dated. 1. 1. 2000 passed by the District Collector, Hanumangarh, I find that impugned order is just, legal and proper order which does not require any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. In view of the above discussion, all these petitions fails and are hereby dismissed. .;