CWP No.7757 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.7757 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 2.6.2010 Israil ...Petitioner Versus State Election Commissioner, Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Senior DAG Haryana. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 to 3 to ensure that names of the persons detailed in para 8 of the writ petition are not enrolled as voters of village Tonka, Tehsil Hathin, District Palwal illegally as also to remove the names of persons mentioned in para 10 from the voter list of the said village and further direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to take legal action against respondent No.4 for enrolling his minor children and relatives as voters while working as BLO. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that names of persons mentioned in para 8 ought not to be deleted from the voter list for the Panchayat election as they are permanent residents of the village and the persons mentioned in para 10 ought to be deleted from the voter list, they having been wrongly included. Reply has been filed on behalf of the State. CWP No.7757 of 2010 2 Learned State counsel submits that objections as prescribed in proforma 'C' were not sent by the petitioner within the period prescribed. The voter list was finally published on 15th April, 2010 and election schedule has also been announced. According to him, the present petition is, thus, misconceived. On merits, it has been submitted that voter list has been correctly prepared after taking all the relevant documents into consideration. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that certain time period was prescribed for entertaining objections by the election authorities. The objections were to be filed by 5th April, 2010. However, the petitioner did not move any objections on the prescribed proforma within the period prescribed. Thus, grievance of the petitioner after expiry of said period is clearly misconceived. Even otherwise from the stand taken by the State in its reply, it appears that before finalizing the voter list, all the relevant documents pertaining to voters were taken into consideration. Thus, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction of this court is made out. In any case, election schedule having been already announced, no exceptional circumstance is made out warranting interference of this court. The petition is, thus, devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 2.6.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No