Sh. Bhaiyya Mahadeo Ramteke v. The Chief Election Commissioer Of India

$~21 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10983/2018 & C.M. 42761/2018 SH. BHAIYYA MAHADEO RAMTEKE ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Milind P. Singh, Advocate

Versus

THE CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIOER OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Nemo.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

% 25.10.2018 Petitioner claims to have unsuccessfully contested the State Assembly elections in the year 2004 and its Bye Poll in the year 2006. In this petition, a mandamus is sought to respondent to decide petitioner's Representation of 20th August, 2018, in which an apprehension is expressed that the upcoming elections are not going to be free and fair elections. A copy of Representation of 20th August, 2018 has been annexed as Annexrure P-1 (colly).

Counsel for petitioner has handed over a copy of order of 8th October, 2018 passed on petitioner's Representation of 20th August, 2018, which reads as under:- Page | 1

"

Election Commission of India Nirvachan Sada, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001 No.51/8/16/9/2018-EMS/301 Dated: 08th October, 2018 To Sh. Bhaiyya Mahadeo Ramteke, R/o Nilkamal Apartment, Shende Layout, Ramnagar, Chandrapur, Maharashtra- 442401 Subject:- Representation against the use of EVM in upcoming Legislative Assembly Elections-reg.

Sir, I am directed to refer to your letter dated 20/21.08.2018 received in the Commission on 21.08.2018 and to state that your representation has been considered and has been filed, being completely devoid of merit, rationality or sound mathematical / scientific principle. Yours faithfully, Anoop Kumar Secretary"

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that a cryptic response to a detailed Representation has been given by respondent. The prayer made by petitioner's counsel is that respondent be directed to give a speaking response to petitioner's Representation of 20th August, 2018. Upon hearing and on perusal of respondent's Communication of 8th October, 2018, I find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, this petition and the application are accordingly dismissed.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE OCTOBER 25, 2018 r Page | 2