SWARAJ INDIA Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR.
LAWS(DLH)-2017-3-92
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
March 29,2017
Swaraj India
Appellant
VERSUS
State Election Commission And Anr.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SANJOY SACHDEV V. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]MOHINDER SINGH GILL V. THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
SADIQ ALI P KAKKAN VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA NEW DELHI:CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
JYOTI BASU VS. DEBI GHOSAL [REFERRED TO]
ROOP LAL SATHI VS. NACHHATTAR SINGH GILL [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI CHARAN SEN ELECTION COMMISSION A K M HASSAN UZZAMAN VS. A K M HASSAN UZZAMAN:A K M HASSAN UZZAMAN:UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KANHIYA LAL OMAR VS. R K TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
S T MUTHLJSAMI VS. K NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
ANUGRAH NARAIN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
UMESH SHIVAPPA AMBI VS. ANGADI SHEKARA BASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. ASHOK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI MOINGIRI MAHARAJ SAHAKARI DUGDHA UTPADAK SANSTHA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MANDA JAGANATH VS. K S RATHNAM [REFERRED TO]
AVTAR SINGH HIT VS. DELHI SIKH GURDWARA MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE [REFERRED TO]
KISHANSING TOMAR VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DESIYA MURPOKKU DRAVIDA KAZHAGAM VS. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T D RAJALAKSHMI VS. DISTRICT ELECTION OFFICER ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Hima Kohli, J. -
(1.)The petitioner herein, Swaraj India, a registered unrecognized political party, had originally filed the present petition praying inter alia for issuing directions to the respondent No.1/State Election Commission, NCT of Delhi, (in short 'SEC') and the respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi (in short 'GNCTD') to modify/quash Para 4(d) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 2016 and the orders dated 21.02.2017 and 07.03.2017 passed by the respondent No.1/SEC, rejecting its request for granting a common symbol in the forthcoming MCD Elections, 2017 to candidates nominated by it. The second relief is for directions to the respondent No.1/SEC to allot a common symbol to all the candidates nominated by the petitioner for the MCD Elections, 2017. Lastly, a restraint order has been prayed for against the respondents, restraining them from notifying the schedule for the MCD Elections, 2017.
(2.)When the petition was listed for admission on 15.3.2017, Mr. Pushkarna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC had appeared and stated that he had not been furnished an advance copy of the paper book. An advance copy of the petition was served only in the office of the Standing Counsel (Civil), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the paper book to the counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC in the course of the day and the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2017. On 20.03.2017, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC had stated that by the date the present petition was listed for admission on 15.3.2017, SEC had already notified the new Symbols Order, 2017 on 14.03.2017, which has not been assailed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file an application to amend the writ petition.
(3.)Vide order dated 21.02017, the amendment application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the amended writ petition was taken on record. In the amended petition, prayer (1) was modified to assail Para 4(d) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Delhi Symbols Order, 2017"). Rest of the reliefs were as before. Due to the urgent nature of the relief prayed for in the petition, learned counsels for the respondent No.1/SEC and the respondent No.2/GNCTD were directed to obtain necessary and complete instructions for addressing final arguments on the petition. Thereafter, extensive arguments were advanced by learned counsels over 22.2017, 22017 and 24.2017.
(2.)When the petition was listed for admission on 15.3.2017, Mr. Pushkarna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC had appeared and stated that he had not been furnished an advance copy of the paper book. An advance copy of the petition was served only in the office of the Standing Counsel (Civil), Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the paper book to the counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC in the course of the day and the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2017. On 20.03.2017, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/SEC had stated that by the date the present petition was listed for admission on 15.3.2017, SEC had already notified the new Symbols Order, 2017 on 14.03.2017, which has not been assailed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid development, counsel for the petitioner had sought time to file an application to amend the writ petition.
(3.)Vide order dated 21.02017, the amendment application filed by the petitioner was allowed and the amended writ petition was taken on record. In the amended petition, prayer (1) was modified to assail Para 4(d) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "Delhi Symbols Order, 2017"). Rest of the reliefs were as before. Due to the urgent nature of the relief prayed for in the petition, learned counsels for the respondent No.1/SEC and the respondent No.2/GNCTD were directed to obtain necessary and complete instructions for addressing final arguments on the petition. Thereafter, extensive arguments were advanced by learned counsels over 22.2017, 22017 and 24.2017.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.