Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:5494 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 618 of 2025 SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.31 20:01:39 +0530 1 - Gram Panchayat Kukurdi Block- Balodabazaar, P.S. City Kotwali- Balodabazaar, Dist.- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) Through - Its Present Sarpanch- Tikeshwar Dhruw, Aged About- 36 Years, S/o Shri Bedram Dhruw, R/o House No. 114, Ward No. - 06, Goverdhan Chowk, Viii.-Kukurdi, Dist.- Balodabazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Collector Balodabazaar, District- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 3 - Sub Divisional OfÏcer (Revenue) Balodabazaar, Dist.- Balodabazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) 4 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission Through- Chief Election Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Near Dks Bhawan (Old Mantralaya), Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Assistant Electoral Registration OfÏcer Balodabazaar, Tah.- Balodabazaar, Dist.- Balodabazaar-Bhatapara (C.G.) 2 (Cause title taken from CIS) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) For Respondent Nos. 1 to
Legal Reasoning
: Shri Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate 3/State For Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 : Shri R.S. Marhas, Advocate. General. Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 30.01.2025 1. The petitioner Gram Panchayat preferred the present writ petition through its Sarpanch against the issuance of voter list of Gram Panchayat Kukurdi District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, by which the names of persons belong to a particular caste who were shifted to border of gram panchayat temporarily in the year 2012-13 were again added in the voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih. 2. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier near about 300 voters living at slum area within the limit of Nagar Palika near Indira Colony at Balodabazar, were shifted from there for beautification of area promising them for their rehabilitation. At the time of shifting of said persons in the year 2012-13, the panchayat has raised objection, however they were assured orally that said citizens will be resettled preferably within 4 to 6 months. Learned counsel further submits that earlier the writ petitioner has preferred a writ petition bearing WPC No. 197/2020 during previous Panchayat election for the same purpose i.e. against the inclusion of said voters in the voter list of gram panchayat kukurdih, however the
Decision
writ petition was disposed of with a direction to approach the State 3 Election commission, but the Election Commission did not take any action on the said objection. Now again name of said persons are included in the voter list of gram panchayat, hence the present petitioner including the villagers are facing hardship due to shifting of the said voters within the gram panchayat grazing land of Kukurdih. (ii) Learned counsel would submit that the inclusion of name of the said 262 voters who are not original resident of gram panchayat kukurdih in the voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih is absolutely illegal as they are not the original resident of village Kukurdih. The petitioner submitted a representation before Election Commission, but no action has been taken for exclusion of said 262 voters from the voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih. 3. Learned counsel for the State and the Election Commission would submit that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is in the nature of public interest and hence same is not maintainable. Even the petitioner who is seeking exclusion of name of 262 voters from voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih, they have not impleaded as necessary party, hence in absence of said 262 voters in the present writ petition, the writ petition will not be maintainable. The petitioner also failed to demonstrate that what prejudice is being caused to the petitioner because of the inclusion of the said 262 voters in the voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih. In fact, the gram panchayat is not at all concern with the inclusion of voters in the voter list who are residing within the area of gram panchayat. The petitioner has not annexed or pleaded that the panchayat has resolved to raise this 4 issue by filing the present writ petition. Hence the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard both the counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings. 5. The petitioner seeking exclusion of name of 262 voters from the voter list of gram panchayat Kukurdih stating that they are not original resident of gram panchayat Kukurdih and they were temporarily settled within the gram panchayat area. The petitioner being gram panchayat failed to demonstrate that what prejudice is being caused to the gram panchayat because of the inclusion of 262 voters in the voter list of gram panchayat, Kukurdih, even the petitioner failed to state as to how the gram panchayat is aggrieved by the inclusion of the said voters in the voter list. Even the petitioner has not pleaded or annexed any resolution of panchayat to file the present writ petition. 6. It is a trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. 7. It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated 5 ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others)1. 8. With regard to non joinder of necessary parties, the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions categorically held that the High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large. (See: Ranjan Kumar v State of Bihar2). 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts and present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petition is without having any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib 1 (2001) 4 SCC 734 2 (2014) 16 SCC 187