Today the matter was listed before the High Court, honourable justice, Sachin Dutta, heard both the parties enquired election commission as to what action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. The ECI produced an order dated 20 April 2024, that was passed after the filing of the repetition Wherein ECI, without any reasoning has rejected the representation. ECI stated that the petitioner didn’t have the locus and petition. The earlier petition filed with regard to the same issue by someone else has been dismissed as withdrawn at the Honble High Court of Delhi.
[06/05, 12:38] Sc Adv Priya Darsini: WP(C) NO. 6313/2024
M.G. DAWOOD V/S ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA &ANR.
Item no. 72
Court no. 32
Hon’ble MR. Justice Sachin Datta
Argued by Sr Advocate Shri Pramod Kumar Dubey, assisted and WRIT filed by Advocate G Priya Dharshini.
The petitioner had filed multiple representations to ECI for almost 10 years challenging the merger of two political parties, IUML (Indian Union Music League) and MLKSC ( Muslim League Kerala State Committee) as illegal because the merger resolution had signatures from members of other political parties who were not connected to IUML. Further merger was illegal on the account of various other substantial reasons. The merger took place in year 2011 which was approved by ECI on 3rd March,2012.
ECI responded to the representation of the petitioner on 28-12-2015, saying that the matter is pending under the High Court in a petition filed by one MS Fathima, wherein merger was made subject to outcome of writ petition. Meanwhile petitioner kept sending representations to the ECI with his persistent prayer challenging the merger. Writ petition pending was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 27 -9 – 2021 without addressing the issue of merger.
We once again filed representations to the ECI in year 2022 and finally on 29.01.24 asking to set aside the issue of merger. As the ECI did not take necessary actions nor replied, the petition was filed on 15th April 2024 at the Honble High Court of Delhi, and the copy of the same was advance to ECI. ECI after noticing the case being filed, without considering any of the grounds taken in the representation and moreover not clarifying the merger of parties , and to make the petition infructuous had disposed of the representation with a cryptic order on 20-4-2024.
Today Matter was heard for the first time at Delhi High Court before Justice Sachin Dutta, where the ECI appeared on advance notice
Today the matter was listed before the High Court, honourable justice, Sachin Dutta, heard both the parties enquired election commission as to what action has been taken on the representation of the petitioner. The ECI produced an order dated 20 April 2024, that was passed after the filing of the repetition Wherein ECI, without any reasoning has rejected the representation. ECI stated that the petitioner didn’t have the locus and petition. The earlier petition filed with regard to the same issue by someone else has been dismissed as withdrawn at the Honble High Court of Delhi.
Petitioner contended that merger is illegal and fraud played upon the democracy. The petitioner also submitted that ECI being a constitutional independent body should consider this serious issue rather than going technically questioning the locus. The honourable judge enquired ECI as to why the representation of the petitioner has not been decided properly by giving a personal hearing and taking all the issues raised in the representation of the petitioner.
ECI was adamant that this is the proper course of action. The honourable judge made very strong and critical observations against ECI conduct. The High Court Judge Orally made a remark that ECI cannot act as a private body. ECI has to act as a neutral body.
The High Court judge remarked ECI is expected to pass a reasoned order than such a cryptic order. The court also orally enquired if ECI can decide properly after hearing the petitioner however ECI refused. The HC was critical of the conduct of ECI in dealing with the matters of such importance in a routine manner like any government department when ECI is a constitutional authority.
The High Court judge finally directed petitioener to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 20.04.24 passed by ECI after the filing of writ petition. With said liberty the matter was disposed of. Now the petitioner will challenge the order dated 20.04.24 passed by ECI as directed by HC.
[06/05, 12:39] sekarreporter1: 👍
