CWP No.6769 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.6769 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.5.2010 Jagtar Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents. Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the applicant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 26th March, 2010 (Annexure P-4- Colly), whereby names of the petitioners were deleted from the voter-list of village Barod, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that action of the official respondents is totally arbitrary as the petitioners are in fact residents of village Barod. According to him, this is borne out from the fact that the petitioners have voter identity cards issued by the Election Commission of India showing them as registered voters of village Barod. This apart, even the Jamabandis show that the petitioners have CWP No.6769 of 2010 2 their properties in village Barod. Learned counsel has also referred to Section 165 of the Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) to contend that every person, who is entitled to be registered as voter in the electoral rolls of the Assembly under the Representation of People Act, 1950, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter in the list of voters for the electoral division, to be prepared under Section 164 of the Act. Learned State counsel has, however, refuted the aforesaid contentions. He submits that the petitioners have already availed of their remedy by filing an application under Section 196 of the Act before State Election Commission Haryana. The Election Commission thereafter referred the matter to Deputy Commissioner, Jind for enquiry. Enquiry was handed over to Additional Deputy Commissioner, who submitted his report vide memo No.142 dated 5th April, 2010, wherein it was stated that petitioners are ordinarily residents of revenue estate of village Anta, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. Learned counsel has emphasised that the Additional Deputy Commissioner along with Halqa Kanungo and Patwari went to the place where the petitioners normally reside. According to the enquiry report, the petitioners themselves admitted before the Additional Deputy Commissioner that their houses are situated within the boundary of village Anta. The details of their residence were also given in the enquiry report, according to which, the petitioners reside in Dera Richhpal Singh which comes in Hadbast No.57 of village Anta. Even according to record, Khasra No.5/16-25, CWP No.6769 of 2010 3 17-24 comes in the Hadbast of village Anta. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that pursuant to representation, submitted by the petitioners, the State Election Commission Haryana marked an enquiry to Deputy Commissioner, Jind, who entrusted the same to Additional Deputy Commissioner. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner visited the spot and conducted a detailed inspection. He came to the conclusion that petitioners are normally residents of village Anta and not of village Barod. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are normally residents of village Barod, cannot be gone into by this court under writ jurisdiction of this court as the same is a disputed question of fact. It is, however, clear that an opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners and an enquiry was conducted pursuant to their representation. I, thus, find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 19.5.2010 'rajpal'