TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether persons living in illegally constructed or unauthorized houses in a Cantonment area are entitled to be enrolled as electors and vote in Cantonment Board elections; (ii) Whether Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 requires the electoral roll to be arranged by house numbers so as to exclude such persons; (iii) Whether a writ petition challenging the electoral roll was maintainable despite the availability of an election petition remedy.
Issue (i): Whether persons living in illegally constructed or unauthorized houses in a Cantonment area are entitled to be enrolled as electors and vote in Cantonment Board elections.
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats the right to vote as purely statutory. Section 28 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 confines enrolment to a person who is not less than eighteen years old and has resided in the cantonment for the prescribed period. The expression "resident" in Section 2(zt) was read narrowly and contrasted with the broader expression "inhabitant" in Section 2(zc). Reading the Act as a whole, including the prohibition on unauthorized construction and the power to demolish illegal buildings, the Court held that residence contemplated by Section 28 refers to a legally constructed house maintained with the Board's sanction.
Conclusion: Persons living in illegally constructed or unauthorized houses are not entitled to be enrolled as electors or to vote in Cantonment Board elections.
Issue (ii): Whether Rule 10(3) of the Cantonment Electoral Rules, 2007 requires the electoral roll to be arranged by house numbers so as to exclude such persons.
Analysis: Rule 10(3) directs that the names of electors in each part of the roll shall be arranged according to house numbers. The Court held that this rule is consistent with Section 28 and does not impose an additional disqualification. Since illegal structures are not assigned house numbers and are liable to be treated as unauthorized, persons residing in such structures cannot be included in the roll prepared under Rule 10(3). The contention that the rule defeats the substantive right under the Act was rejected.
Conclusion: Rule 10(3) validly supports exclusion from the electoral roll of persons living in illegally constructed houses.
Issue (iii): Whether a writ petition challenging the electoral roll was maintainable despite the availability of an election petition remedy.
Analysis: The election petition remedy under the Rules does not extend to challenges concerning inclusion or exclusion in the electoral roll, in view of the proviso to Rule 55. The Court therefore accepted that the writ petition was maintainable to question the legality of the voters list itself.
Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the electoral roll was maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The electoral rolls for Cantonment Board elections must be prepared strictly in accordance with the statutory definition of "resident" and Rule 10(3), with persons occupying illegally constructed or unauthorized houses excluded from enrolment; the appeals consequently failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In Cantonment Board elections, the statutory expression "resident" denotes lawful occupation of a sanctioned house, so persons living in unauthorized structures are not qualified electors under the Act and Rules.
TaxTMI 
