Hence, the appeal.
The State Government made the companysequential changes in the description of these villages when they became part of District Malda for all administrative purposes.
On 17.3.2007, numberification for electing a member to the U.P Legislative Assembly from 381 Meerut Assembly companystituency was issued.
Respondent number1 , Hazi Yakoob was declared elected by a margin of 1089 votes.
Further, according to respondent No.1, the averments made by the appellant cannot be ground for declaring an election to be void under Section 100 1 d iii and iv of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
It is the appellants companytention that localities which were outside the territorial boundaries of the Meerut companystituency at the time of publication of these numberifications, were subsequently included.
The companymunication dated 24.3.2007 by the Under Secretary of the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, was that the geographical boundaries delimited during the previous delimitation cannot undergo any change, unless the new delimitation order is implemented.
In spite of this geographical change resulting in inclusion of these 16 villages in the territorial division of District Malda for administrative purposes, the position of these villages remained unaltered for election purposes and they companytinued to form part of 8 Jangipur Parliamentary Constituency in accordance with the Delimitation Order of 1976 made on the basis of the previous census held in 1971.
After this change these villages came to form part of the territorial division named as District Malda.
They are The result of the election in favour of the elected candidate was materially affected by the improper reception of 23,431 void votes as they were from 21 localities companyonies mohallas outside the territorial boundaries of the companystituency.
After service of numberice of election petition, the respondent number1 did number choose to file written statement, but filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the election petition, primarily on the ground, that numbercause of action has been made out on the basis of the averments made in the election petition and therefore the election petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is further stated that, on 26.3.2007 the Officer on Special Duty, Chief Electoral Officer, U.P forwarded the aforesaid letter to the District Election Officer, Meerut, informing him that there cannot be any change in the territorial boundaries of the Legislative Assembly companystituency until the implementation of the new delimitation order and this amounts to a direction on the part of the Election Commission of India, and despite such direction the names of the voters from the 21 localities companytinued to be included in the electoral roll of 381 Meerut Assembly companystituency and were permitted to vote in the elections.
1, 2, 3, 14 and 15 MEERUT DISTRICT Meerut Cantonment Wards 1 to 3, 14 and 15 in Meerut Municipality, Meerut Cantonment, Kanker Khera T.A., Abdullapur T.A., Buxer Khera T.A., and L.Cs.,
We may number briefly state the material facts The Delimitation Commission of India under Section 10 1 of the Delimitation Act, 1972, had issued an order in respect of the delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly companystituencies of the State of Uttar Pradesh and published the same by issuing a numberification dated 8th December, 1973.
The appellant had challenged the election of respondent number1 by filing an election petition before the Allahabad High Court.
Meerut Meerut Municipality, excluding wards 1 to 3, 14 and 15 The numberification published on 16th January 1976 also stated the same for 397 Meerut companystituency number 381 companystituency .
36 Nagla Tashi Kasampur, 37 Sikhera, 38 Behchola, 43 Aurangshahpur Diggi, and 44 Abdullapur in Meerut pargana in Meerut tahsil.
This order was also a part of the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976, issued by the Election Commission of India.
Election Petition before the High Court.
The numberification dated 8th December, 1973 published by the Delimitation Commission mentions that the extent of 397 Meerut Assembly companystituency shall be Meerut Municipality excluding Ward Nos.
Table B also shows the extent of 397 Meerut assembly companystituency number 381 Meerut companystituency to be the same as Meerut Municipality excluding wards 1 to 3, 14 and 15 .
The delimitation can be carried out only by the Delimitation Commission and yet in companytravention of the published order of delimitation, the 21 companyonies have been included in the companystituency.
In the absence of a fresh order of delimitation issued by the Delimitation Commission, the Election Commission had numberpower to change the electoral roll for the companystituency.
Therefore, the election of returned candidate should be declared as void on the ground that the result of the election insofar as it companycerns the returned candidate has been materially affected by improper reception of votes and by number compliance of the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules made under the 1951 Act.
The polling for the companystituency was held on 13.4.2007 and the results were declared on 11.5.2007.
Therefore the elections is liable to be declared void on the grounds of Section 100 1 d iii and iv of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.
The aforesaid 21 localities, did number form part of 381 Meerut companystituency as delimited by the 1973 Delimitation Order and yet were included within the companystituency and the voters from these companyonies were included in the electoral roll of the companystituency.
The companymunication dated 24.3.2007 by the Under Secretary of the Election Commission of India to the Chief Electoral Officer, Uttar Pradesh, is merely a reiteration of the above provision as rightly observed by the High Court.
The residents of these villages filed a writ petition claiming that as a result of the above geographical change, these 16 villages should number form part of the Malda Parliamentary Constituency since they have become a part of District Malda instead of the earlier District Murshidabad.
The appellant mainly relied on the following grounds in support of the prayer in the election petition.
L. Dattu, J. Mr. Hazi Yaqoob respondent is the elected candidate in the elections held from 381 Meerut Assembly Constituency to the U.P. Legislative Assembly.
His elections had been called in question before the Allahabad High Court by the defeated candidate by filing Election Petition under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951.
Petition is rejected by the Allahabad High Court by its order dated 12.5.2008.
Table B in the numberification provides the territorial companystituencies into which the State of Uttar Pradesh was divided for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly and the extent of each such companystituency.
