CWP No.7851 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7851 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.5.2010 Lakhi Ram ...Petitioner Versus Election Commission, Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash impugned order dated 1st April, 2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.3, vide which objections filed by the petitioner to delete the names of respondents No.4 to 19 from the voter-list of Ward No.1 of Village Kohlawas, Block-I, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani were rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that objections raised by the petitioner have been wrongly rejected by the concerned authority. He has referred to resolutions, Annexures P-1 & P-2, passed by Gram Panchayat Kohlawas and Gram Panchayat Sanjarwas respectively to contend that from a perusal of the same it is clear that respondents No.4 to 19 are not residents of village Kohlawas but of village Sanjarwas. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State in court. The CWP No.7851 of 2010 2 same is taken on record. Learned State counsel has referred to the same and submitted that objections preferred by the petitioner were duly considered by respondent No.3. According to him, a committee was constituted for spot inspection. The committee comprised of Social Education and Panchayat Officer and two Gram Sachivs, submitted its report on 1st April, 2010 and came to the conclusion that respondents No.4 to 19 are actually residents of village Kohlawas. According to him, on the basis of the report of the committee, names of said respondents were rightly included in the voter list of village Kohlawas. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that objections raised by the petitioner were duly considered by the concerned authority. The committee, which was constituted, visited the spot and submitted a report that respondents No.4 to 19 were actually residents of village Kohlapur. Since decision was arrived at pursuant to report of the committee, no ground to interfere in the writ jurisdiction of this court is made out. The contentions raised are basically factual in nature. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. In view of above, this petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 13.5.2010 'rajpal'