Jayapal Reddy Vs. State Election Commission and ors.

constitution of india - articles 227 and 227-election law-writ petition-seeking direction to authorities to restrain respondents from casting their votes-grounds urged-respondents are not the residents of the constituency-whether petitioner is the aggrieved person-held-petitioner has not contested the election-even if the respondents cast their votes in the election, he will not be affected in any manner-the petitioner is not the 'aggrieved person' and he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition.;w.p. dismissed. - code of civil procedure, 1908. order 47 rule 1: [v. jagannathan, j] review of judgment and decree in regular second appeal position of an illegitimate son coparcenary properties ruling in the case of smt. sarojamma v smt. neelamma, [reported in ilr 2005 (3) kar 3293; 2005 (5) klj 66; 2005 (3) kccr 2053; 2005 air kar r 1894; air 2005 noc 422; 2006 (1) civil l.j. 145] consideration of held, one of the grounds for seeking review is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not an erroneous decision on facts, held, an error on a point of law is apparent on the face of the judgment with regard to the entitlement of an illegitimate child to a share in the property of his father, irrespective of the nature of the property. hence, the matter requires to be reviewed. review petiton was allowed and the the judgment dated 24.7.2007 in rsa no. 955/2001 was restored to file for being heard by the appropriate bench. orderv. gopala gowda, j.1. since this writ petition can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage itself, h.b. narayan, learned high court government pleader is directed to take notice on behalf of respondents 2 to 4 and sri k.n. phanindra to take notice for the first respondent.2. heard the learned counsels for the parties.3. the petitioner is seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to restrain respondents 4 to 16 from casting their votes. the case of the petitioner is that they are not the residents of the constituency of 5th respondent-gram panchayat but they got their names included in the voters list at annexure-a of the same constituency. the petitioner has produced annexure-b to f to show that their names are found in jayanagar constituency.4. the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted for the following reasons.--(i) the petitioner is seeking injunction against respondents 6 to 18 from casting their votes in the gram panchayat election. the proper forum for granting injunctory relief is the competent civil court. the said relief cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction.(ii) the prayer itself is misconceived. respondent 4 being the tahsildar and respondent 5 being the hennagara gram panchayat, they will not cast votes. despite that, injunction relief is sought restraining these respondents also from casting their votes.(iii) the voters list at annexure-a is of the year 2005 whereas the voters lists at annexure-b to f pertain to the year 1998. after 1998, respondents 6 to 18 might have shifted to 5th respondent-gram panchayat jurisdiction. the said probability cannot be ruled out.(iv) the voters list at annexure-a was published on 31-1-2005 and the election is scheduled on 27-2-2005. but, the writ petition is filed today (25-2-2005). since election is scheduled day after tomorrow, interference at this juncture is not proper. the petitioner is not diligent in approaching this court. on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be.....