CASE TITLE – SAYED KHALIL ULLA HUSSAINI v. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
CASE NUMBER – WP NO. 12711 OF 2024
DATED ON – 16.05.2024
QUORUM – Justice R. Devdas & Justice J.M. Khazi
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner is before this Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents Chief Electrol Officer, Bengaluru and The Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi to consider his representation dated 12.03.2024, Annexure-A, and 13.03.2024 at Annexure-B, requesting that the implementation of free bus services to transport the voters on the polling date, and he has also pleaded to enhance the number of polling booths, which has been fixed at 160 for the Election to the post of Member of Legislative Council in the North East Graduate Constituency, 2024.
ISSUES
Whether the Election Commission can be compelled to implement free bus services for voters.
Whether the Election Commission is obligated to consider the petitioner’s representation regarding the enhancement of Polling Booths.
LEGAL PROVISION
Section 123(5) of The Representation of People Act, 1951, deals with restrictions on providing transportation to voters during elections.
CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER
The petitioner was seeking to espouse public cause, in as much requesting the implementation of free bus services to transport the voters on the polling date so that the voters could be facilitated to travel by such free buses and cast their votes, which according to the petitioner would be in the interest of democracy. He has also pleaded to enhance the number of polling booths, which has been fixed at 160 for the Election to the post of Member of Legislative Council in the North East Graduate Constituency, 2024. The Petitioner has prayed to a) Allow this Public Interest Litigation and b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the representation Dated 13.03.2024 submitted.
CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
The Learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out from the statement of objections that in so far as first prayer made by the petitioner, firstly, such powers cannot be exercised by the Election Commissioner. Secondly, it is pointed out from the express provision contained sub-section (5) of Section 123 of The Representation of People Act 1951, and more particularly, the second proviso of sub-section (5) and submits that neither the candidates nor the State Governments or the Public Transport Corporations can make such provision, since it would go contrary to the express provision. The Learned counsel therefore submits that if such directions are issued either by the State Government or the Head of Department of the Public Transport Corporation, it would violate the express provisions contained in the statute. And the second request made by the petitioner regarding the enhancement of polling booths, the learned counsel for the respondents had drawn attention to Annexure-R3, which was filed along with the statement of objections. He submitted that the polling stations which were earlier fixed at 160 are enhanced to 195 having regard to the number of voters and the information obtained from the respective Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, was of the argument that the prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka viewed an an endorsement dated 19.03.2024 that has been issued by the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi, Sub-Division to the petitioner bringing to his notice the prayer made by the petitioner and the arrangements made by the Chief Election Commissioner for the purposes of the impending elections. It had been stated that no such arrangement for plying free buses can be made either by the Chief Election Commissioner or any other Authority, since it would be in violation of the express provision contained in the Act, 1951. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka was of the considered opinion that the two prayers made by the petitioner having regard to representation given by him have been answered by the respondents in the statement of objections. And also in the Endorsement to the petitioner, they brought to his notice the enhancement of polling booths made from 160 to 195, which would meet the requirements having regard to the number of voters in the constituency. And In that view of the matter, The Hon’ble High Court was satisfied that the respondent Chief Election Commissioner, through the Regional Commissioner has considered the grievance of the petitioner, and had concluded that Writ Petition shall hereby be dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Gnaneswarran Beemarao
