B B BHAJANTRI Vs. RETURNING OFFICER CORPORATION OF BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this Writ Petition was taken up for admission this morning, Mr.S.V.Subramaniam who was in Court in connection with other work, took notice at our request on behalf of the 1st respondent-Returning Officer, Corporation of Bangalore. The 2nd respondent is the State of Mysore. For purpose of disposing of this Writ Petition, the presence of the State or anybody on its behalf is not necessary. Therefore notice to the 2nd respondent was dispensed with.

(2.) We have now heard arguments on behalf of both the petitioner and the 1st respondent and proceed to make final order in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The principal grievance of the petitioner, who has been appointed as the Presiding Officer at Polling Station No.18 of Division No.1, is that by reason of such appointment and in the absence of appropriate instructions issued by the Returning Officer, he is prevented from casting his vote as one of the voters entitled to do so. It would appear that at a meeting of the Returning Officer and the Presiding Officers convened for discussing the preliminaries, various suggestions were made as to the manner in which Presiding Officers may be enabled to cast their votes, but that the discussion did not result in the formulation of any workable plan Insisting that the right to vote is statutorily conferred upon him under S.50 of the Act and the Returning Officer is bound by law to make it possible for him to vote and that any attempt on his part to prevent him from voting will defeat the purpose of the law. the petitioner pravs for issue of direction in the nature of mandamus calling upon the Returning Officer to make appropriate arrangements to enable the petitioner to exercise his vote in connection with elections to the Corporation