1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 660 of 2025 1 - Shubham Singh Thakur S/o Shri Liladhar Singh Thakur Aged About 24 Years R/o House Number 73, Pailpara Sarangarah, Dist- Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, Sarangarh, Dist- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 2 - Additional Collector Sarangarh Dist.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 3 - Deputy District Election Officer Sarangarh, Dist- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.) 4 - Tahsildar Sarangarh Dist- Sarangarh Bilaigarh (C.G.) 5 - Smt. Lata Laxme W/o Arun Laxme Aged About 41 Years Vill. - Charra, P.S. And Tahsil- Sarangarh Dist.- Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (Chhattisgarh) 6 - Chief Electoral Officer Through State Election Commission Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate For Resp No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 31/01/2025 1. By the present petition, the Petitioner is questioning the order dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Respondent RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.02.04 10:23:44 +0530 2 No.2/Additional Collector, whereby the appeal filed by respondent No.5 has been allowed and the name of respondent No.5 has been restored in Voter list. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 5 is holding two epic numbers for election ID of two different address, which is in violation of Section 17 & 18 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950. He would submit that though on the basis of complaint made by him, respondent No.4/Tahsildar deleted the name of respondent No.5 from voter list, but in an appeal preferred by respondent No.5 before the Additional Collector/Respondent No.2, the same has been allowed without considering the fact that the name of one person cannot be recorded in the voter list of two different places. He submits that the petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No.3 on 22/01/2025, but the same has not been decided. Therefore, the petitioner seeks a direction towards respondent no.3 to decide the same with a prayer for quashing the order dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure-P/1). 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as for the Election Commission submit that the petitioner is not having any locus to question the inclusion of name of respondent No.5 in the voter list of Gram Panchayat, Charra as the Petitioner is a resident of Village- Sarangarh and he is not having any relation with the Gram Panchayat, Charra. Therefore, the petitioner is not having 3 any locus to question the order impugned dated 17/01/2025 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Additional Collector/Appellate Authority. 5. From perusal of the pleadings and the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it appears that respondent No.5 is resident of Gram Panchayat, Charra and her name has been included in the voter list of the Gram Panchyat, Charra. Whereas, the petitioner, who is resident of Village Pailparra, Sarangarh, though is not having any relation with Gram Panchayat, Charra has raised objection to the voter list of Gram Panchayat by filing the present writ petition. Even, the Appellate Authority had considered the objection of the petitioner and after finding that the petitioner is not having any locus to question the inclusion of respondent No.5 in the voter list of Gram Panchyat, Charra as he was having no relation with the Gram Panchayat, Charra, it dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE Rahul