'3': IN HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.fC) N0. ^O'^ /2009 <?i?.S.<aS E- ST,1"8.1 u'W^Lc SB'1 PETITIONER : ^ RESPONDENTS: 1) 1) Prem Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Munna Ram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village- Tarenga, Tahsil-Bhatapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) Shiv Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Dukalha Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Village- Tarenga, Tahsil-Bhatapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Sub-Divisional Officer & Registration Officer (Panchayat), Bhatapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2) 3) / 4) Tahsildar 85 Assistant Registration Officer, Bhatapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) Gyanendra Agrawal, S/o Shri Prafulla Narayan Agrawal, aged about 46 years, R/o Police Line Raipur, Village- Tarenga, Tahsil-Bhatapara, District-Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (•"WeS ^-,.rfSffB!K% 1 vr^^^'' ^ ^ ;\i.i HIGH CQURT OF CHMATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (0 N0.7086 OF 2009 Prem Kumar Sahu & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advooate for the petitioners. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyerforthe State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of October, 2010) 1. Heard learned counselfor the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges inclusion of name of the respondent No.4 in two voters' list in the city of Raipur (Annexure P/14) and subsequently, in the voters' list of village-Tarenga, Tahsil- Bhatapara, as the same is not permissible under provisipn of law. If the respondent No.4 is permitted to continue his name in two voters' list, he would be taking advantage in exercise of his right ofadult franchise in two constituencies, which is strictly prohibited. Initially, the petitioner has challeriged this issue, when the local election was due. The local election in village-Taranga, Tahsil-Bhatapara had already taken place. 3. According to Shri Sridhar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, the petition has become infructuous, as the voter list is prepared everytime beforethe election. 4. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the voters' list is always prepared, modified just before the election. Thus, this petition has become infructuous on the facts. However, the objection raised by the petitioner that one cannot be permitted to have his name included in two voters' list, has to be examined by the officers dealing with theelection. If any representation is made by the petitioner to the District Election Officer in this regard, the same should be considered in accordance with law and proper order may be passed. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Arun Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge