$~19

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 969/2015
KIRAN WALIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Pankaj Kumar, Mr Naveen Gaur
and Ms Harpreet Kaur, Advocates.
versus
CHIEF ELECTION OFFICER & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr P. R. Chopra and Mr Amit Sahni,
Advocate for ECI.
Mr H. S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate with
Mr Rahul Mehra, Mr Rishikesh
Kumar and Ms Neha Rastogi,
Advocates Arvind Kejriwal.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 04.02.2015
CM No.1707/2015
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 969/2015 & CM No.1706/2015
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as
under:-
“i. Issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/ orders,
direction/directions, whereby directing the
respondent no.1 to decide the objections and
application filed under Form-7 of the Registration
of Electoral Rule, 1960 by the petitioner objecting
the inclusion of name as a elector at 87, Block-K,
B.K. Dutt Colony of the respondent no.2 in
electoral list before including his name in the
 electoral roll of Delhi;
ii. Issue the directions to the respondent no.1 to
decide the application filed by the respondent no.2
under form-8A of the Act in the light of the
objections filed by petitioner and other objectors,
facts stated above and the relevant provisions of
law before entering his name as a Elector AC-40
Part 144 of Delhi.
iii. Issue directions to election commission through
concerned officials to delete the entry of his name
from the electors roll part no.111 Sr. No.515 AC-
40, New Delhi as per respondent no.2’s own
declaration he seizes to be the ordinary resident of
C-II/23, Tilak Lane, New Delhi since 30.07.14. ”

Essentially, the petitioners grievance is that her objections against the

inclusion of the name of respondent no.2 has not been considered by the
concerned officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that
the Electoral Registration Officer was obliged to carry out the deletion from
the Electoral Roll on the relevant facts, as stated in the petitioner’s
complaint, being brought to his knowledge. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further handed over a photocopy of Form 8A dated
17.11.2014 which contains respondent no.2’s request for noting down his
residential address as 514 VBP House, Rafi Marg. It is submitted that the
period of continuous residence as reflected in that Form was zero years and
zero months. The learned counsel further contends that Form 8A submitted
by respondent no.2 for recording his residential address as K-block, B. K.
Dutt Colony, Delhi also contains a similar assertion and in these
circumstances, the said form could not have been accepted.
The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of this
Court to Section 23(3) of the Representation of the Peoples’ Act, 1950,
which reads as under:-
“(3) No amendment, transposition or deletion of any
entry shall be made under section 22 and no
direction for the inclusion of a name in the
electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under
this section, after the last date for making
nominations for an election in that constituency or
in the parliamentary constituency within which that
constituency is comprised and before the
completion of that election.”

The learned counsel for the respondent further states that the
objections raised by the petitioner would be considered at an appropriate
stage after the elections are over.
In view of the express provisions of Section 23(3) of the said Act and
the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, no further
orders are required to be passed in this petition at this stage. The petition, is
accordingly, disposed of.
It is clarified that nothing stated in the order should be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
MK