IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2121 of 2010. Abdul Gani S/O Haneef. … Petitioner. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents. Date December 15, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 10482 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned report dated 25- 8-2010 of respondent no. 3-Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Haridwar ( Annexure 6 to the petition) and the impugned order dated 7-12-2010 passed by respondent no.2-District Magistrate Haridwar (Annexure No. 9 to the petition). By the report dated 25-8-2010, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Haridwar made a recommendation on the basis of survey made by joint team on 12-8-2010 for demarcation of revenue boundaries of village Bharapur and village Bhauri, Tehsil Roorkee, district Haridwar, in order to correct the voter list. The petitioner had filed objection, which was not decided by the Collector, therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.M.S. No. 1706 of 2010, Abdul Gani Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. This Court vide order dated 29-9-2010, disposed of the writ petition finally with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the District Magistrate Haridwar and directed the District Magistrate to dispose of the objection of the petitioner after hearing him, if not already decided. 2 The District Magistrate Haridwar, in compliance of this Court’s order, after hearing the petitioner, rejected the objection filed by the petitioner as well as the representation made by him by his order dated 7-12-2010, which is impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the earlier election, 47 families were included in the village Panchayat Bharapur and most of them are holding ration cards in village Bharapur and the learned District Magistrate has included all the 47 families in village Bhauri in violation of the Government Order dated 23-11-2009 (Annexure-10) and the G.O. dated 6-4-2010 (Annexure-1 collectively). By a perusal of the report of Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Haridwar (for short A.D.M.) it reveals that some villagers of village Bhauri made an application to include the families, who are living in revenue village Bhauri in the voter list of village Bhauri instead of Bharapur. The A.D.M. called a meeting on 12-8-2010 along with Block Development Officer, staff of Tehsil and consolidation officer. In the meeting, the residents of village Bharapur and village Bhauri and other village Mauja Dera including Pradhan of both the village Panchayats were also present. The dispute to be decided by the A.D.M. was between village Bharapur and village Bhauri to include or not to include the names in the voter list. It appears that after taking measurements of the boundaries of two villages namely Bharapur and Bhauri by a joint team, on the basis of village map, the recommendation was made by the A.D.M. to the Collector Haridwar to correct the voter list of the families residing in their respective revenue village by his report dated 25-8-2010 (Annexure-6 to the petition). Accordingly, the voter list was corrected and those persons were included in the revenue village Bhauri, who are residing in village Bhauri only. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of the Government Orders, referred to above, is of no help to the petitioner for the simple reason that the matter in 3 controversy is all together different. The dispute arose when some persons of village Bhauri made a complaint that some families, who are residing in revenue village Bhauri have been included in the voter list of village Bharapur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended that the application was made after publishing the tentative list, therefore, the A.D.M. ought not to have entertained the application thereafter. Admittedly, by the direction of this Court vide order dated 29-9-2010, the petitioner was heard by the Collector at length and on the basis of the report of A.D.M., the voter list has been corrected. From a perusal of the record, it is obvious that in compliance of the order dated 29-9-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1706 of 2010, the petitioner filed his objection dated 10-10-2010 before the District Magistrate, Haridwar, which was considered by the District Magistrate vis-à-vis the relevant documents while passing the order impugned in this writ petition. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit like a court of appeal and disputed questions of fact cannot examined in this writ petition. In the above facts and circumstances, I find no illegality or infirmity in the report and the order, impugned in this writ petition. There is no perversity in the order passed by the District Magistrate. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. A certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow (16-12-2010) on payment of usual charges. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP