1 2025:CGHC:5202 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 591 of 2025 1 - Ajit Kukreja S/o Shri Ananad Kukreja Aged About 50 Years R/o Shyam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Election Commission, Through Secretary, Near Dks Bhawan (Old Mantralaya) Raipur, (C.G.). 2 - Collector And District Election OfÏcer (Local Elections) District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Nagarpalika Nigam Raipur, Through Commissioner, District Raipur (C.G.). 4 - SDM Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vijay Sharma (Aro) Revenu OfÏcer Raipur, District Raipur, Raipur (C.G.). 6 - Pramod Mishra, Councillor, Maharshi Valmiki Ward No. 32, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.01.30 15:54:11 +0530 2 For Petitioner(s) : Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State & Election Commission : Shri R.S.Marhas, Addl. Advocate General For Respondent no. 3 : Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate along with Ms. Ayushi Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 29.01.2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner, who is a resident of Shyam Nagar, Raipur, preferred the writ petition seeking a direction towards the respondent nos. 2 to 5 to correct the voter list of ward no. 33 by excluding the names of voters of ward no. 32, ward no. 30, ward no. 09 & ward no. 51, as per the inspection panchnama report of respondent nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner further seeks a direction towards the respondent no. 1 to initiate action against the respondent no. 5 & 6. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the election of Municipal Corporation Raipur for the post of Mayor and Councilor are notified and the voter list has been prepared by the respondent no. 2, 3 & 4, thereafter objection were sought from the respective person. The petitioner submitted an objection before the concerned authority i.e. the respondent no. 3 & 4 i.e. the Commissioner Municipal Corporation Raipur and SDM Raipur, alleging that the names of about 1200 to 1500 voters have wrongly and intentionally included in the voter list of ward no. 33 i.e. Shahid Veer Narayan 3 Singh Ward. He further submits that the voters whose names were included are the resident of ward no. 32 i.e. (Maharishi Valmiki Ward). He contended that all these things have been done at the behest of the respondent no. 6 who is current councilor of ward no. 32. After the said objection, spot inspection was done by Commissioner Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner found irregularity. As per the Inspection Panchnama 566 voter names were found to be illegally included in the voter list of ward no. 33, though the inspection and panchnama report was forwarded to the SDO, but no initiatives were taken for correction of voter list. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent/State as well as Chhattisgarh State Election Commission and the respondent corporation would submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the nature of grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is of public interest litigation (PIL). Even, the writ petition is also not maintainable because the petitioner is seeking quashment of inclusion of name of 1200 to 1500 voters in the voter list of ward no. 33 and in absence of said persons as party/respondent in the present writ petition, no direction can be issued for deletion or inclusion of their name from the voter list of a particular ward. Learned counsel would further submit that presently voter list has already been finalized and the process of election has already been started and hence the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the communication which has been made by the petitioner to the various authority. 5. It appears from the pleadings & documents annexed with the writ petition, that, firstly; the petitioner never approached the State Election Commission who is the final authority to make deletion in the voter list of a particular constituency, the petitioner has never intimated or informed the Chhattisgarh State Election Commissioner about this alleged illegality. Secondly; the petitioner has not disclosed how the petitioner would aggrieved by the alleged inclusion of 1500 voters in ward no. 33 and the petitioner has not disclosed his locus how and what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner for the alleged inclusion of so called 1500 voters in the list of ward no. 33. Presently, the final voter list has already been published and the election process has already been started. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kishorchandra Chhanganlal Rathod vs. Union of India & Others1, which will not be applicable in the case of the present petitioner as the said writ petition was regarding exercise of judicial review in the matter of delimitation. 7. It is trite law that ordinarily, the person who seeks a relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must have personal or individual right in the subject-matter and the word “ordinarily” includes, a person who has been prejudicially affected by an act or omission of an authority. 1. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1879 5 8. It is also the settled law that a person shall have no locus standi to file a writ petition if he is not personally affected by the impugned order or his fundamental rights have neither been directly or substantially invaded nor is there any imminent danger of such rights being invaded or his acquired interests have been violated ignoring the applicable rules. (See: Vinoy Kumar v State of U.P. and Others)2. 9. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts and present case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is not maintainable and the writ petition is without having any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Shoaib 2 (2001) 4 SCC 734