Ravinder Kumar Rawal v. State Of Haryana And Others

220-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16925-2020 Date of decision: 31.03.2022 Ravinder Kumar Rawal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Shruti Jain, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana For respondents No.1, 5 and 6.

Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4.

Mr. A.S. Shera, Advocate for respondent No.3.

Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.7.

TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner had filed the instant petition in the month of September, 2020 seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to read into Rule 70C of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Election Rules, 1994 as regards usage of VVPAT machine along with EVMs so as to make the provision in consonance with Rule 49A (amended vide Government of India notification dated 14th August, 2013) as also other rules and DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.04.01 16:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document

CWP-16925-2020 -2provisions of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Counsel representing the petitioner states that by virtue of efflux of time and on account of Municipal Corporation Panchkula Election having already been held, he would not be pressing the instant petition. The petition is disposed of as not pressed.

However, the main issue raised in the light of the prayer aforenoticed, is kept open.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE March 31, 2022 (PANKAJ JAIN) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2022.04.01 16:11 I attest to the accuracy of this document