Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

N.S. Nangia­Advocate vs . The State Election Commissioner & Ors. ... on 5 February, 2019

N.S. Nangia­Advocate Vs. The State Election Commissioner & Ors.     CS No. 407/19

 IN THE COURT OF SH. KAMRAN KHAN, CIVIL JUDGE ­06,
    CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.

                                                          CS 407/19
     N.S. Nangia­Advocate Vs. The State Election Commissioner & Ors.
05.02.2019
At 4:00 PM.
Present:­      None.


               Present suit for mandatory and permanent injunction is
filed by the plaintiff on the averments that he is a citizen of India and
has a legal right and duty to cast votes to the candidate of his choice.
However, in the last elections his name, name of his wife and son were
deleted from the list of voters.
               It is the general grievance of the plaintiff that the elections
held through EVMs are done by unfair means and there is urgent
requirement to set right the system and the system of casting votes must
be corrected and reestablished as there has not been any proper, fair and
authentic system of casting votes, managing the casting of votes
particularly in view of the fact when there has been news or rumors that
there is every possibility of hacking and during the previous general
elections unfair means and practices were played to gain majority.
               After hearing ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and having
perused the case file carefully and meticulously, this court is of the

CNR No. DLCT03­000854­2019                                        Page No. 1 of 3
 N.S. Nangia­Advocate Vs. The State Election Commissioner & Ors.     CS No. 407/19

considered opinion that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
present suit as the entire plaint is based only on the information received
by the plaintiff either by way of news or through the Internet. By way of
the present suit, plaintiff has sought a decree for mandatory injunction
directing the defendants to give consideration to the proposals and
suggestion etc. given by the plaintiff in his representations­cum­
suggestions­cum­legal notices sent to the defendants via email dated
06.12.2018, 04.01.2019 and 01.02.2019 and further to direct the
defendants to issue state­wise election cards and keep complete record
thereof in safe and secure manner and to implement preferable system
of casting of votes through computer / cell phones etc. and to adopt all
such possible means and majors to set right the system of holding all
elections ensuring no hacking or tempering of any kind and also to issue
an automated response, printed slip separately; send SMS at the
registered cell phones and also emails to each voter in response to the
vote casted by the voter and to perform all such other acts to hold free
and fair elections. Further, plaintiff has also sought decree of permanent
injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants etc., to allow
any hacking, tempering, omission or commission, unfair means in
holding of all future elections throughout. The bare reading of the
reliefs sought by the plaintiff shows that he wants that the defendants
shall ensure free and fair elections, which is the duty of the defendants
and if the defendants are not doing their duty then the remedy lies


CNR No. DLCT03­000854­2019                                        Page No. 2 of 3
 N.S. Nangia­Advocate Vs. The State Election Commissioner & Ors.     CS No. 407/19

somewhere else. Just because the plaintiff has heard some news or
rumors that no fair elections is being held up in the country does not
give him the cause of action to file the present suit. Hence, the plaint
does not discloses any cause of action and accordingly, it stands
rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
               Further, in the entire plaint plaintiff has failed to point out
his personal interest in the matter and accordingly, as per Section 41(J)
of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 no injunction, either mandatory or
permanent, can be granted where plaintiff has no personal interest in the
matter. The present plaint is more couched in the form of a Public
Interest Litigation and this court is not the proper forum to take up the
Public Interest Litigation and in this way also, present suit is not
maintainable before this court.
                      ORDER :

PLAINT REJECTED.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced in the open court. KAMRAN KHAN Civil Judge ­06 (Central)/THC Digitally Delhi/05.02.2019 signed by KAMRAN KAMRAN KHAN KHAN Date:

2019.02.05 16:59:17 +0530 CNR No. DLCT03­000854­2019 Page No. 3 of 3