IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 7650 of 2010 & connected matters. Decided on: December 6, 2010. 1. CWP No. 7650 of 2010. Shashi Bala Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2. CWP No. 7651 of 2010. Neelam Kumari Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3. CWP No. 7652 of 2010. Shiksha Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 4.. CWP No. 7660 of 2010. Vimpi Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 5. CWP No. 7661 of 2010. Sunil Kant Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 6. CWP No. 7662 of 2010. Varun Bakshi & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 7. CWP No. 7663 of 2010. Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 8. CWP No. 7667 of 2010. Radhika Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 9. CWP No. 7668 of 2010. Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 10. CWP No. 7664 of 2010. Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 11. CWP No. 7665 of 2010. Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 12. CWP No. 7666 of 2010. Desh Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 13. CWP No. 7693 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 2 14. CWP No. 7694 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 15. CWP No. 7695 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 16. CWP No. 7696 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 17. CWP No. 7697 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 18. CWP No. 7698 of 2010. Anju Bala Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 19. CWP No. 7699 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 20. CWP No. 7700 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 21. CWP No. 7701 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 22. CWP No. 7702 of 2010. Manoj Chadha Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 23. CWP No. 7703 of 2010. Paramjit Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 24. CWP No. 7704 of 2010. Vipin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 25. CWP No. 7705 of 2010. Ramesh Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 26. CWP No. 7706 of 2010. Ritu Raj Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 27. CWP No. 7707 of 2010. Krishna Rani Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 28. CWP No. 7708 of 2010. Dev Raj Bakshi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 29. CWP No. 7709 of 2010. Maya Devi Vs. State of H.P. & ors. 3 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner(s): Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K.Bawa, AG, with Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG for respondent-State. Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for H.P. State Election Commission. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners in these cases are aggrieved since their names are not included in the final voters list and their objections with regard to inclusion of the names of some of the voters in the revised voters list for election to the Municipal Council Dalhousie, have not been considered by the Revising Authority. According to the petitioners, they had submitted their appeals aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, before the Deputy Commissioner. But, it is seen that the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed all those appeals on the ground that the appeals are time barred. According to the petitioners, though the order impugned before the Deputy Commissioner is dated 8th November, 2010, they were supplied with the copy of the same only on 9th /10th November, 2010 and within three days, they had filed the appeals. Rules 11, 14 & 15 of the H.P. Municipal Election Rules, 1994 deals with the procedure in that regard, which read as follows: 11. Disposal of claims and objections.- (1) On the date, time and place fixed under the provisions of rule 10, the Revising Authority shall hear and decide the claims and objections under the provisions of these rules, and shall record his decision in the register in Form-5, 6 or 7, as the case may be. (2) Copy of the order relating to the objection shall be given free of cost to the claimant and objector immediately, if he is present. Otherwise he can get the copy of the same on payment of Rs. 5/- in cash. (3) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under the provisions of sub-rule (1) may, within three days from the date of the order, file an appeal to Deputy Commissioner, who shall as far as practicable, within a week, decide the same, confirming such 4 order, or setting aside or passing such other order with respect to the claim and objection as he may deem fit. (4) If it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that due to inadvertence and error during the preparation of electoral rolls, names of electors have been left-out of the electoral roll or the name of dead persons or of persons who ceased to be or are not ordinarily resident in the ward have been included in the electoral roll and that remedial action should be taken under this sub-rule, the Deputy Commissioner shall- (a) prepare a list of the name and other particulars of such electors; (b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of the list together with a notice as to the date(s) and place(s) at which the question of inclusion of the names in electoral roll or deletion of the names from the electoral roll will be considered; and (c ) after considering any verbal or written objection that may be preferred and decide whether all or any of the names should be included in or deleted from the electoral roll. 14. Correction of entries in Electoral Rolls. – If the Deputy Commissioner on an application in Form-4 or in Form-16 made to him, or on his own motion, is, satisfied, after such inquiry as thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll.- (a) is erroneous or defective in any particular; (b) should be deleted on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that electoral roll, he shall amend or delete the entry: Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause (a) or clause (b) that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll the Deputy Commissioner shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being head in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him: Provided further that an application under this rule at any time after the publication of the election programme under rule 22 shall be made to the Deputy Commissioner not later than five days before the last date fixed for the filing of nomination papers. 15. Inclusion of names in electoral roll, finally published.- (1) Any person, whose name is not included in the electoral roll, shall make an application in Form-2 ( in duplicate) to the Deputy Commissioner for inclusion of his name in that electoral 5 roll, and such application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5/- to be paid in cash against receipt: Provided that after the publication of the election programme under Rule 22 such an application shall be made not later than eight days before the last date for the filing of nomination papers. (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall immediately on receipt of application under sub-rule (1) paste one copy thereof in some conspicuous place at his office and invite objections thereto to be filed within a period of 4 days from the date of such pasting. (3) The Deputy Commissioner shall as soon as may be, after the expiry of the period as specified in the notice under sub-rule (2), consider the objections, if any received by him and shall if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct such name to be included therein accordingly: Provided that if the applicant whose name is ordered to be included, is already registered in the electoral roll of any other ward such a name shall be deleted from that electoral roll. (4) Where an application made under sub-rule (1) is rejected, an appeal shall lie, within a period of ten days from the date of rejection of the application for the inclusion of name or deletion of name to the State Election Commission and the appeal shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 25/- to be paid in cash against receipt. The State Election Commission shall decide the appeal within 10 days after giving opportunity to the party concerned of being heard and the order passed on such appeal shall be final.” 2. According to the learned Advocate General and Sh. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel appearing for the H.P. State Election Commission, the time provided under Rule 11(3), being three days, an appeal cannot be entertained beyond three days. We find it difficult to comprehend the submission since the 6 petitioner in each case was supplied with the copy only after two days of passing the order. If the argument as such is appreciated, the Revising Authority can very well defeat the purpose of the statute by delaying the supply of the copy by three days, and since the appeal will not be entertained without the impugned order. 3. Be that as it may. Rule 15 of the Rules, otherwise provides that the Deputy Commissioner can exercise his power in the matter of non inclusion of names, if invoked within 8 days prior to the last date of filing the nomination. As far as the non-deletion is concerned, the power is vested in the Deputy Commissioner under Rule 14. The last date of filing nomination is 15th December, 2010, as per the Notification. Therefore, any person who is aggrieved of non-inclusion of the name in the voters list is entitled to approach the Deputy Commissioner on or before 7.12.2010. In all these cases, the petitioners have already approached the Deputy Commissioner. In order to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings, we direct the Deputy Commissioner to treat the appeals filed by the petitioners on the ground of non-inclusion and the objection with regard to inclusion of the names of some of the voters in the revised voters list for election to the Municipal Council, Dalhousie, as applications filed under Rules 14 & 15. The petitioners will make up the deficit court-fee, if not already paid as provided under the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner will pass orders on those applications treating the same as applications filed under Rules 14 & 15, within a week from the date of production of the copy of this judgment, before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioners. 5. All the petitions stand disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. December 6, 2010. ( Justice V.K. Sharma ), (karan) Judge.