IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1729 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Hans Raj & others ......Petitioner(s) Versus Dalel Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Balraj Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.22745-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1729 of 2009 As per the averments made in this petition, the names of the petitioners were deleted from the voters' list by the respondent. They filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Kurukshetra which was allowed and their names were ordered to be restored in the voters' list of village Ahmedpur. One Dalbir Singh filed a revision petition before the Chief Electoral Officer, Haryana, which was dismissed. CWP No.12999 of 2007 filed by aforesaid Dalbir Singh was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.8.2007 upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Electoral Officer, Kurukshetra, whereby the names of the petitioners were ordered to be restored in the voters' list. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the respondent again deleted their names and because of that reason they could not cast their votes during the parliamentary elections held in the month of April, 2009 and therefore, the respondent is guilty of committing contempt of this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused COCP No.1729 of 2009(O&M) -2- the record of this petition. Admittedly, no direction was given by this Court vide its judgment dated 21.8.2007 and the writ petition was dismissed upholding the order passed by the Chief Electoral Officer Haryana under the Representation of People Act, 1950. It is the case of the petitioners themselves that their names were restored. Even otherwise, admittedly, the petitioners have an alternative remedy to challenge the aforesaid order in accordance with law. The petitioners herein were not the parties before the writ Court and hence they have no locus standi to maintain the instant petition. Thus, I am not inclined to take cognizance of this petition. Dismissed. Rule discharged. September 23, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE