IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(113) CWP-1698-2017
Decided on: February 01, 2017.
Avtar Henry @ Avtar Singh Sanghera
.... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI
Present: Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate, for the petitioner.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL)
The petitioner claims that he had been a British subject on the
basis of an application filed by him under Section 6 (1) of British
Nationality Act, 1948 and under Section 12 (2) of the Commonwealth
Immigrants Act, 1962 in the year 1968 but he has been residing in India
since 1969.
Vide order dated 30.11.2012, his citizenship as Indian, has
been cancelled. A statutory revision petition under Section 15 of the
Citizenship Act, 1955 has been filed by the petitioner and is pending before
the General Secretary (Foreigners) Ministry of Home Affairs. Copy of the
memorandum of representation filed in the year 2012 has been appended
with the petition as Annexure P-5.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said revision
petition is still pending.
During pendency of the said revision petition, the name of the
petitioner from the voter list has been deleted. Vide order Annexure P-9,
1 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2017 15:20:59 :::
CWP-1698-2017 -2-
the Returning Officer of the Jalandhar North Constituency has cancelled
the registration of the petitioner in the electoral role. It is contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being an ordinary
resident of the Constituency, fulfills the condition of registration under
Section 19 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 and that he being
in India since 1969, is a citizen of India, his legal rights having not been
determined by the statutory authority under Section 15 of the Citizenship
Act, 1955, the impugned order is not only illegal but has got effect of
depriving the petitioner of his fundamental right to vote as a citizen of
democratic country.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going
through the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950, I am of
the considered opinion that a statutory appeal under Section 24 of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 is maintainable against the impugned
order to the Chief Electoral Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is a
clear case of violation of fundamental right, the remedy under Section 24 of
the said Act will not be efficacious remedy.
This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be
relegated to the alternative remedy of availing the statutory appeal against
the impugned order as all the questions of law and fact can always be raised
before the said Appellate Authority.
Taking into consideration the imminent damage which could be
caused to the petitioner, his name having been deleted from the electoral
role by the impugned order, in the interest of justice, it is ordered that in
case, the appeal is filed within a period of 10 days, the same will be
2 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 01-02-2017 15:21:01 :::
CWP-1698-2017 -3-
entertained. All the pleas taken up in the present writ petition could be
taken up by the petitioner and it is expected that all the pleas will be
considered by passing a speaking order in appeal.
In the interest of justice, it is ordered that operation of the
impugned order Annexure P-9 will remain stayed during the period of filing
of the appeal and adjudication of the first statutory appeal.
The petitioner will be entitled to cast his vote on the basis of
the electoral role prepared on 30.11.2016 by the Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer.
The writ petition is disposed of with above observation.
(M.M.S. BEDI)
JUDGE
February 01, 2017