Allowed

Sobo Pertin v. the State Election Commission Arunachjal Pradesh

Gauhati HC20 Nov 2020IA(C)/130/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order corrects clerical errors in Paragraph No. 2 of a previous interlocutory order dated 17.11.2020 in PIL No. 10(AP)2020. The correction clarifies the applicants' ward registrations and inserts a paragraph clarifying the context regarding erroneous entries in electoral rolls.

What did the court decide?

The interlocutory application was allowed and disposed of with the correction of the previous order.

Sobo Pertin Vs the State Election Commission Arunachjal Pradesh — Election Law | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040008332020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : IA(C) 130/2020

¶5

1:SOBO PERTIN

¶6

S/O SHRI MAGER PERTIN, RESIDING NEAR PUBLIC BUS STAND, PASIGHAT, WARD NO. 7, EAST SIANG DISTRICT, AP.

¶7

2: REBEKA MEGU

¶8

RESIDENT OF JARKU VILLAGE PASIGHAT WARD NO. 4 EAST SIANG DISTRICT AP.

¶9

3: SHRI OYIN GAO

¶10

RESIDENT OF 2 MILE-SAW MILL AREA(WEST) WARD NO. 6 PASIGHAT EAST SIANG DISTRICT AP.

¶11

4: NANGKU TAYENG

¶12

RESIDENT OF LOWER BANSKOTA WARD NO. 8 PASIGHAT EAST SIANG DISTRICT AP

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

1:THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ARUNACHJAL PRADESH THROUGH THE SECRETARY, STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, AP.

¶15

2:THE SECRETARY

¶16

STATE ELECTION COMMISSION ARUNACHAL PRADESH ITANAGAR.

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-DISTRICT MUNICIPAL ELECTION OFFICER PASIGHAT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL EAST SIANG DISTRICT AP.

¶19

4:THE STATE OF AP THROUGH THE SECRETARY TOWN PLANNING AND URBAN LOWER BODIES GOVT. OF AP ITANAGAR

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : Dicky Panging Diana Tamuk Marconi Doji Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP) Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Date : 20-11-2020

¶25

Heard Mr. Dicky Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants.

¶26

Also heard Mr. Ajin Apang, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3; and Mr. I. Riram, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 4.

¶27

In the order, dated 17.11.2020, passed by this Court in PIL No. 10(AP)2020; in Paragraph No. 2, it has been mentioned that the petitioners are the residents of Ward No. 4 of the Pasighat Municipal Council(PMC), however, it was erroneously reflected in the aforesaid order, dated 17.11.2020, as because, in the said Public Interest Litigation(PIL) itself, in Paragraph No. 1, it was stated that petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 & 4, belongs to Wards No. 7, 4, 6, and 8, respectively.

¶28

In view of the above, the aforesaid mistakes in the order, dated 17.11.2020, passed by this Court in PIL No. 10(AP)2020, stands corrected. Henceforth, the Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, shall be treated to be the residents of Wards No. 7, 4, 6 and 8, respectively.

¶29

Page No.# 3/3

¶30

That apart, in the PIL No. 10(AP)2020, it was mentioned that the petitioners, by filing the said PIL, had brought to the judicial notice of the Court, the erroneous entries made in the electoral rolls of various Wards of Pasighat Municipal Council(PMC), which has crept-up because of the delimitation of the number of Wards by bringing down the numbers of Wards from 12 to 8 which has resulted in amalgamation of areas of different Wards and the consequent decision taken by the State Election Commission that the electoral rolls for the time being inforce for the election of the members of the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly shall be adopted as the electoral roll for election of members to the urban local bodies in Arunachal Pradesh without carrying out any revision of the electoral rolls after the delimitation process.

¶31

Situated thus, the foregoing Paragraph shall be treated to have been inserted in Paragraph No. 2 of this Court’s order, dated 17.11.2020, passed in PIL No. 10(AP)2020. Accordingly, the paragraph, in question, as quoted-above, shall be read as the new and the correct paragraph of the order, dated 17.11.2020, passed in PIL No. 10(AP)2020, instead of the original Paragraph No. 2 as reflected in the order, dated 17.11.2020, passed in the aforesaid PIL No. 10(AP)2020.

¶32

With the above directions, the interlocutory application stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Sobo Pertin v. the State Election Commission Arunachjal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sobo Pertin v. the State Election Commission Arunachjal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Minken Tasar Vs Ms. Nitu Tsering Glow

Minken Tasar Vs The State of Ap and Others

M/S Chukhu Sera Enterprise Vs the State of Ap

M/S G R Enterprise Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Goi Yangfo Vs the State of Ap

Tabuk MIbang Vs the State of Ap