1 wp-7014-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7014 OF 2010 Udaysinh Kakaso Patil and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State Election Commission Maharashtra State and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for petitioners. Mr. S.B. Shetye for respondent no.1. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for respondent nos.4 and 5. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A. A. SAYED, JJ. September 06, 2010. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Shetye, the learned counsel appears for respondent no.1. Ms. Thakur, the learned AGP, appears for respondent nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioners have questioned the order dated 27/7/2010, by 2 wp-7014-10 which the respondent no.1 has published the dates as a preparation for holding the Village Panchayat elections scheduled in November and December, 2010. On 6/9/2010 the voters’ list is going to be made available to the voters under Rule 3(4) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat (Elections) Rules, 1959 and as per Rule 3(5) of the said Rules the final list of voters is going to be published on 13/9/2010. 3. Mr. Kulkarni has relied upon the communication dated 8/6/2010 issued by respondent no.2 for revision of the voters’ list for the Legislative Assembly as on 1/1/2010. Mr. Kulkarni submitted that when the exercise of revision of the voters’ list has already been undertaken and in response thereto the petitioners submitted their representations and they were heard by respondent no.4, the voters’ list is required to be up-dated even in the ensuing Village Panchayat elections and unless those objections are taken into considerations, there cannot be a voters’ list which is going to be displayed on 6/9/2010 under Rule 3(4) of the Mumbai Village Panchayat (Elections) Rules, 1959. Mr. Kulkarni referred to Section 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The said section reads as under:- “12. List of voters.- 3 wp-7014-10 (1) The electoral roll of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly prepared under the provision of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLII of 1950), and in force on such day as the State Election Commissioner may by order notify in this behalf for such part of the constituency the Assembly as is included in a ward or a village shall be the list of voters for such ward or village. (2) An officer designated by the State Election Commission in this behalf shall maintain a list of voters for each such ward or village.” 4. It was submitted by Mr. Shetye that respondent no.2 is not part of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 has issued the communication/ circular dated 8/6/2010 at the behest of the Election Commission of India and the revision of voter’s list, as contemplated in the said circular dated 8/6/2010 has no connection with the ensuing elections to be held in November/December, 2010 for the Village Panchayat. The Village Panchayat elections will be as per the impugned declaration made by the Assistant Commissioner of respondent no.1 on 27/7/2010. 4 wp-7014-10 5. We are satisfied that the impugned program published by respondent no.1 on 27/7/2010 cannot be linked with the circular issued by the respondent no.2 on 8/6/2010 and which has been relied upon by the petitioners. If pursuant to the said circular the petitioners’ representations were heard by respondent no.4, he would submit his report to respondent no.2 and may be for the revision of the voters’ list for the assembly elections. In so far as the Village Panchayat elections are concerned, under Section 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act, which has been relied upon by Mr. Kulkarni, the said elections are required to be held on the basis of the electoral roll available as of now and the work of revision of electoral roll as undertaken by respondent no.2 is a process which would go on independently. The petitioners’ prayer that respondent nos.3 and 4 should incorporate the changes in the voters’ list pursuant to the hearing given to the petitioners and the report that may be submitted by the respondent no.4. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition and prima facie there is nothing on record as of now that the voters’ list would be contrary to the scheme of Section 12 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act. 5 wp-7014-10 6. Hence, the petition fails at the threshold and the same is hereby rejected summarily. (A. A. SAYED,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)