CWP No.8388 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1- Civil Writ Petition No.8388 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Sudesh Dass and others ...Petitioners Versus State Election Commissioner Haryana and others ...Respondents 2- Civil Writ Petition No.8348 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Harpreet Kaur and others ...Petitioners Versus State Election Commissioner Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate and Mr. Robil Dutt, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This judgment shall dispose of above mentioned two writ petitions i.e. CWP No.8388 of 2010 and CWP No.8348 of 2010, as common question of law and facts arises in both these cases. The petitioners have preferred the instant writ petitions seeking a direction to respondents to include their names in the voter list of Municipal Committee, Naraingarh for the ensuing election. Additionally, it has been prayed that candidature of the petitioner No.1 for election as Municipal Councilor be considered. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that names CWP No.8388 of 2010 2 of the petitioners were borne on the voter-list of Municipal Committee, Naraingarh in the last election. However, the same have been illegally deleted from the voter list circulated for ensuing election. He submits that action of the respondents is against the Act and the Rules. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Returning Officer-cum-S.D.O. (Civil), Naraingarh, District Ambala. Learned State counsel has referred to same and submitted that draft roll was prepared on 10th February, 2010 and publication thereof was made in the news paper (Dainik Bhaskar) on 11.2.2010. Claims/objections to the draft roll were invited from the public. The same were to be submitted by 20th of February, 2010 and hearing was to take place on 25th February, 2010. Learned counsel further submits that 97 claims/objections were received, out of which 94 were accepted and three were rejected. The petitioners, however, did not prefer any claim. They even failed to apply under Rule 14-A of the Haryana Municipal Election Rules, 1978. I am, thus, of the considered view that plea of the petitioners for inclusion of their names in the voter list of Municipal Committee, Naraingarh at this stage, is misconceived. No interference is called for in writ jurisdiction of this court. The petitions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 19.5.2010 'rajpal'