# Mudi v. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow & others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 68
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1998-04-24
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mudi-v-state-election-commission-u-p-lucknow-others-39631
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
Intermediate Education Act by means of
notification dated 30.7.1992. His further
submission is that the appointment on
compassionate ground has to be made
against a substantive vacancy in a
permanent capacity and as the petitioner
was working as temporary appointee
against
the
supernumerary
post
of
assistant clerk, in view of Regulation 101
to 107 he was to be adjusted against the
substantive vacancy as soon as the
vacancy comes into existence which was
rightly done on 30.6.1997.

6. After hearing learned counsel for
the petitioner at length and going through
the entire documents filed along with the
affidavit we are of the view that when the
father of the petitioner died, petitioner
was legally entitled to get an appointment
on compassionate ground and he was
rightly appointed as an assistant clerk as
he was qualified for that post only having
qualification of intermediate only. The
law on compassionate ground is very
clear. It is for the purpose of giving
financial assistance to the dependants and
the family members of the deceased who
was a bread earner and died during the
course of his employment. It is apparent
from the order passed by the District
Inspector
of Schools, Meerut dated
24.4.1998 that the officer concerned
considered the relevant rules and law
reported in 1994 (6) SCC, page 657
wherein it has been clearly held that no
person is entitled to claim the benefit
under dying in harness rules more than
once. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
petitioner was entitled to get benefit of
dying in harness rules for second time
when he became qualified for the post of
assistant teacher. We are of the view that
the case of the petitioner is fully covered
by the decision quoted above and the
judgement of the learned Single Judge
does not require any interference in
special appeal.

The special appeal is accordingly
dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6+<0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6+<0$/ .80$5 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -
7+( +21·%/( *3 0$7+85 -

&LYLO 0LVF ZULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0XGL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH
(OHFWLRQ
&RPPLVVLRQ
83
/XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $PLW .ULVKDQ
6KUL 5DYL .DQW
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL %' 0DQGK\DQ

83 3XQFKD\DW 5DM $FW ± 6HFWLRQ
UHDGZLWK 83 3XQFKD\DW 5DM (OHFWRUV
5HJLVWUDWLRQ 5XOHV 5XOH ILQDLW\
RI YRWHU OLVWZKHWKHU LW FDQ EH DOWHUHG
DIWHU SXEOLFDWLRQ KHOG LW LV WR EH WUHDWHG
VDFURVDQFW FDQ QRW EH FKDOOHQJHG HLWKHU
LQ ZULW SHWLWLRQ RU E\ HOHFWLRQ SHWLWLRQ
XQGHU 6HFWLRQ F RI WKH $FW
+HOG
:H DUH WKHUHIRUH FOHDUO\ RI WKH RSLQLRQ
WKDW
DIWHU
WKH
SXEOLFDWLRQ
RI
ILQDO
HOHFWRUDO UROO DQG FRPPHQFHPHQW RI WKH
HOHFWLRQ
SURFHVV
QR
FKDOOHQJH
WR
LWV
FRUUHFWQHVV FDQ EH HQWHUWDLQHG E\ PHDQV
RI D ZULW SHWLWLRQ XQGHU $UWLFOH RI WKH
FRQVWLWXWLRQ
7KH
HOHFWRUDO
UROO
LV
VDFURVDQFW DQG LWV FRUUHFWQHVV FDQQRW EH
FKDOOHQJHG LQ DQ HOHFWLRQ SHWLWLRQ ILOHG
1All] Mudi V. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow & others
69
XQGHU 6HFWLRQF RI WKH 83 SDQFKD\DW
5DM $FW DV ZHOO
&DVH /DZ GLVFXVVHG
$,5 6& ±
$,5 6& ±
-7 6&
 6&&
 6&& ±
$,5 6&

By the Court

1. The petitioner contested election
for the office of Pradhan of village Bhura,
Tehsil Kairana, District Muzaffarnagar
Which was held on June 23.2.2000. In the
said election 4902 were cast out of which
308 votes were rejected as invalid.
Petitioner secured 1957 votes while
Rishipal, respondent no secured 1752
votes and was accordingly declared to
have been elected as pradhan. The
present writ petition under Article of the
constitution has been filed praying for
several relief including a writ of quo
warranto asking respondent no. 4 to show
his authority to hold the office of pradhan,
a writ of mandamus for restraining
respondent
no.
4
from
functioning
pradhan of the village, writ of mandamus
commanding state Election Commission
and District Returning officer to hold
fresh election of the office of pradhan of
village Bhura in accordance with the
revised electoral rolls after deleting names
of those who were wrongly included in
the electoral of the gaon sabha. Further
relief has been sought praying to writ of
mandamus be issued commanding the
State
Election
Commission
and
the
District Returning officer to delete the
names of all those persons whose names
have been mentioned in annexures- 2 to 4
of the writ petition. Though the relief
claimed in the writ petition has not been
couched in such a language but in effect
the petitioner wants that the election of
respondent no. 4 as pradhan be set aside
and a fresh election held.

2. Sri Ravi Kant, learned counsel for
the petitioner, he submitted that electoral
roll of the gaon sabha, on the basis of
which
the
election
was
held,
was
defective and fraudulent inasmuch as it
contained names of large number of such
persons who were either dead or were
minors or were otherwise not eligible to
vote in the election and, consequently, the
result of the election had been materially
affected and therefore, the election of
respondent no.4 is liable to be aside and a
fresh election should be held after
correcting the electorate roll.

3. In order to examine the contention
raised, it is necessary to notice the
provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act
1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)
and the Rules made there under. Section 9
of the Act which deals with electoral for
each
territorial
constituency
was
drastically amended by U.P. Act No. 9 of
1994.
The
relevant
sub-sections
of
Section of the Act which have a bearing
on the controversy in hand as being
reproduced below:

"9. Electoral roll for each territorial
constituency. - (1) for each territorial
constituency of a Gram Panchayat, an
electoral roll shall be prepared, in
accordance with the provisions of this Act
and the rules made there under, under the
superintendence, direction and control of
the State Election commission.

(I-A) Subject to the superintendence,
direction and control of the State Election
commission,
the
Mukhya
Nirvachan
Adhikari (Panchyat) shall supervise, and
perform all functions relating to the
70 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
preparation revision and correction of the
electoral rolls in the State in accordance
with this Act and the rules made there
under:
(1-B) ............................
(2) The electoral roll referred to in subsection (1) shall be published in the
prescribed
manner
and
upon
its
publication it shall, subject to any
alteration, addition or modification made
in accordance with this Act and the rules
made there under, be the electoral roll for
that territorial constituency prepared in
accordance with the provisions of this
Act.

(3) Subject to the provisions of subsections (4) (5), (6) and (7) every person
who has attained the age 18 years on the
first day of January of the year in which
the electoral roll, is prepared or revised
and who is ordinarily resident in the
territorial
constituency
of
a
Gram
Panchayat
shall
be
entitled
to
be
registered in the electoral roll for that
territorial constituency.

Explanation.............................
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8) Where
the
State
Election
Commission is satisfied after making such
enquiry as it may deem fit, whether on an
application made to it or on its own
motion that any entry in the electoral roll
should be corrected or deleted or that the
name of any person entitled to be
registered should be added in the electoral
roll, it shall, subject to the provisions of
this Act and rules and orders made there
under, delete or add the entry, as the case
may be:

Provided that no such correction,
deletion or addition shall be made after
the last date for making nominations for
an election in the Gram Panchayat and
before the completion of that election;

Provided further that no deletion or
correction of any entry in respect of any
person affecting his interest adversely
shall be made without giving him
reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of the action proposed to be taken
in relation to him.

(9) The State Election Commission may,
if it thinks it necessary so to do for the
purposes of a general or bye-election,
direct a special revision of the electoral
roll for any territorial constituency of a
Gram Panchayat in such manner as it may
think fit.

Provided that subject to the other
provisions of this Act, the electoral roll
for the territorial constituency, as in force
at the time of issue of any such direction,
shall continue to be in force until the
completion of the special revision so
directed."

4. Sub-section (10) of Section 9
confers powers on the State Election
Commission to make provision in respect
of certain matters viz. The date on which
the electoral roll shall come into force and
its period of operation; the correction of
any existing entry in electoral roll; the
correction and inclusion of name of any
person in the electoral roll in so far as the
provision is no made in this regard by the
Act or the Rules. Section 9-A provides
that except as other wise provided by or
under the Act, every person whose name
is for the time being included in the
electoral roll for a territorial constituency
1All] Mudi V. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow & others
71
of a gram panchayat shall be entitled to
vote at any election made and be eligible
for election, nomination or appointment to
any office in that gram panchayat or the
concerned nyaya panchayat.

5. In exercise of power conferred by
sub-section
(2)
of
Section
9
and
Section110 of the U.P. Panchyat Raj Act,
the State Government made the U.P.
Panchyat Raj (Registration of Electiors)
Rules 1994, which were published on
August 20, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as the Rules) Sub-rule (c) of rule 2 defines
" roll" and it means an electoral roll for a
territorial
constituency
of
a
gram
panchayat. Rule 3 provides that in every
district each roll should be prepared and
revised by an Electoral Registration
Officer, who shall be such officer of the
State Government as the State Election
Commission may in consultation with the
State Government designate or nominate
in this behalf. Rule 5 provides that the
first roll should be prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the Rules, Rule8
requires that as soon as the roll for all the
territorial
constituencies
of
a
gram
panchayat are ready, they shall be
published by making a copy there of
available for the inspection and displaying
a notice in form 1 at the office of the
Block
Development
Officer.
The
Electoral Registration Officer shall by
beat of drum or by amplifier or any other
convenient mode give publicity in the
panchayat area to the fact that the rool has
been published. Rule 9 enables any
person whose name is not included or
whose name has been wrongly included in
the
roll
of
some
other
territorial
constituency of the gram panchayat or
whose name is struck off the rolls by
reason of any disqualification, to apply in
form
2
to
the
Assistant
Electoral
Registration officer for inclusion of his
name in the roll. Rule 10 permits
objection to be made against any entry in
the electoral roll either at the instance of
the person concerned on the instance of a
third person. Rule 11 gives a limitation of
7 days for making application or objection
under rule 9 or rule 10 from the date of
publication of the draft roll as provided
under rule 8 Rule 15 enjoins that a notice
shall be served in from at upon every
applicant under rule 9 or rule 10
specifying the place and time when the
application shall be heard , directing him
to be present with such evidence, if any,
as he may wish to adduce. Rule 16 is
material and it provides that an Assistant
Electoral Registration officer shall hold a
summary enquiry into every application
in respect of which notice has been given
under rule 15 and shall record a decision
thereon. At the hearing the person to
whom such notice was issued, shall be
entitled to be present and to be heard.
The
Assistant
Electoral
Registration
Officer may in his discretion require any
person to whom such notice has been
issued to be present and may also require
that the evidence tendered by any person
shall be given on oath and may administer
oath for the purpose. Rule 18 casts a duty
on the Assistant Electoral Registration
officer to take remedial action if name of
a dead person or of persons who cease to
be, or are not, ordinarily resident in the
area of the territorial constituency, have
been included in the roll. He is also
required to prepare a list of the names and
other details or such persons and exhibit a
notice on the notice board in his office
with a copy of the list together with the
notice as to the time and place at which
the question of deletion of such names
from the roll shall be considered and
further after considering any verbal or
72 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
written objections that may be preferred,
decide whether all or any of the names be
deleted from the rolls. Rule 19 relates to
final publication of the roll and sub-rule
(1) and (2) are being reproduced below:

"19. Final publication of roll. - (1) The
Electoral
Registration
officer
shall
thereafter publish the roll together with
the list of amendments under rules
15,16,17 and 18, by making a complete
copy thereof available for inspection and
displaying a notice in form 7 at his office.
(2) On such publication the roll together
with the list of amendments shall be
electoral
roll
for
the
territorial
constituency.
(3)......................."

Rule 21-A provides for appeal and
sub-rule (1) the re of lays down that an
appeal shall lie from any decision of the
Assistant Electoral Registration officer
under rules 16,18 or 21 to the District
Magistrate. Sub-rule 4 of this rule
provides that every decision of the
appellate officer shall be final, but if it
reverses or modifies a decision of the
Assistant Electoral Registration officer, it
shall take effect only from the date of
decision of the appeal.

6. The provisions of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors)
Rules, 1994, show that the draft electoral
roll has to be published and the Electoral
Roll Registration officer shall by beat of
drum or by amplifier or any other
convenient mode shall give publicity in
the panchayat area to the fact that roll has
been published and that a copy thereof
can be inspected free of charge at the
office of the Block Development officer.
Any person whose name is entered in the
roll and has objection of the inclusion of
name of any other person in the roll or has
objection to any particular entry, can file
an application for correction of the
particulars or exclusion of the names
under rule 10 within a period of 7 days
from the date of publication of the roll.
The application is to be heard by the
Assistant Electoral Registration officer
under rule 16 and he can dilate the name
of a dead person or of persons who have
ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily
residents of the area of the territorial
constituency. Against the decision of the
Assistant Electoral Registration officer,
an appeal is provided to the District
Magistrate under rule 21-A. Rule 19
provides
that
the
Electoral
Roll
Registration officer shall publish the roll
together with the list of amendments and
on such publication the same shall be the
electoral
roll
for
the
territorial
constituency. The Rules, therefore,
provide
a
complete
machinery
for
correction of electoral roll. They also
provide that on publication of the final
electoral roll, the same shall be treated to
be the electoral roll for the territorial
constituency.

Similar
provision
is
contained in Section 9 and sub-section (2)
thereof provides that the electoral roll
prepared
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the Act and the Rules shall
be the electoral roll of for the territorial
constituency of the gram panchayat. The
first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section
9 lays down that no correction, deletion or
addition shall be made to an electoral roll
after the last date for making nominations
for an election in the gram panchayat and
before the completion of that election,
Sub-section (12) of Section 9 of the Act
lays down in clear terms that no civil
court shall have jurisdiction to entertain or
adjudicate upon the question whether any
person is or is not entitled to be registered
1All] Mudi V. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow & others
73
in an electoral roll or to question the
legality of any action taken by or under
the authority of the State Election
commission or of any decision given by
any authority or officer appointed in this
behalf in respect of preparation and
publication of the electoral rolls. Thus,
the provisions of the Act attach finality to
an electoral roll which has been prepared
in accordance with rule 19 and the first
proviso to Section 8 of the Act puts an
embargo on the power of the State
Election Commission or any other officer
or authority to made any correction,
deletion or addition in the electoral roll
after the last date for making of
nomination for an election in the gram
panchayat and before the completion of
that election. This clearly shows that for
the purpose of holding an election the
final electoral roll as published under
Rule 19 is to be treated as sacrosanct. The
civil
court
is
also
debarred
from
examining the correctness or other wise of
the electoral roll.

7. In view of the aforesaid provision
a challenge to the correctness of electoral
roll cannot be permitted to be raised after
the publication of the final electoral roll.
If a person feels that name of a dead
person or a person who is not eligible to
be included in the electoral roll has been
included in the electoral roll, his remedy
lies in filing an application at the
opportune time for correction of the entry.
Similarly, if the name of someone has not
been included in the electoral roll though
he is eligible for the said purpose, he
ought to make an application in that
regard within the prescribed period. The
decision
of
the
Assistant
Electoral
Registration officer in these matters is
subject to an appeal and sub-rule (4) of
rule 21-A attaches finality to the order
passed in appeal. The provisions of the
Act and the rules thus provide a complete
safeguard against any wrong inclusion or
wrong omission of name in the electoral
roll. After publication of the final roll the
same is immune from any challenge at a
subsequent stage. Once the process of
election has begun, they can neither be
challenged by means of a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution nor
in an election petition filed under Section
12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act which
gives the procedure for challenging the
election of a person as pradhan.

8. Ours is the biggest democracy and
the second most popular country in the
world and, consequently, the electoral
rolls are also big containing large number
of names. The authorities entrusted with
the duty of preparation of electoral roll
can possibly have no personal knowledge
about the correctness of every entry. If the
people of the area do not take appropriate
steps for deletion of the name of a dead
person or the name of a person who is not
qualified to be entered in the electoral roll
of a panchayat, the same may continue to
find place till the time of the election and
voting. It is practically impossible to have
an absolutely accurate electoral roll. The
State machinery has to spend considerable
time and energy in holding an election
and
it
also
involves
huge
public
expenditure. If the ground of error or
mistake in the electoral roll is entertained,
every election will be under a peril of
being set a side although the authorities
have conducted the election in a most fair
and impartial manner following the rules
and the candidates have also conducted
them selves fairly without committing
even the slightest breach of the law. This
will lead to great uncertainly and will not
be conducive to the growth of a healthy
74 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
and vibrant democracy. Therefore, after
the notification for election has been
issued
no
writ
petition
should
be
entertained challenging the correctness of
the electoral roll. The election of the
returned candidate can also not be
challenged on the said ground either by
filing a writ petition or by means of an
election petition as provided in the statute.
However, if some gross procedural error
has been committed in the preparation of
the electoral roll, like not publishing the
draft
electoral
roll
or
not
giving
opportunity for making an application for
either delection or addition of names, the
action of the authorities in such cases will
not be immune from challenge under
Article 226 of the constitution provided
the same is made promptly and before the
notification for holding the election is
issued.
9. In Baidyanath Panjila Vs. Sita
Ram Mahto, AIR 1970 SC 314, it was
held that reference under Section 62 (1) of
Representation of People Act, 1950, to the
electoral roll shall mean electoral roll in
force on the last day for making
nominations for the election and votes of
persons added after last day for making
the nominations in contravention of
Section23 (3) of the said Act shall be
deemed to be void and, as such, covered
by Section1 00(1) (d) of the Act. In
Subhash Desai Vs. Sharad J. Rao AIR
1994 SC 2277. The appellant's election to
the legislative assemble had been set aside
by the High Court on several grounds and
one of the grounds was that names of
certain persons had been included in the
electoral roll though the final publication
had been made before making of the
nominations.
The
High
Court
after
declaring election of the appellant to be
void, issued a direction to verify as to
whether final publication of the electoral
roll on 15.1.1990 with inclusion of names
of electors was in accordance with law
and if the said inclusion was not in
accordance with the procedure prescribed
by the Representation of People Act,
1950, then to exclude their votes after
opening the ballot boxes and to recount
the valid votes for the purpose of fresh
declaration. The Apex Court set a side the
said direction on the ground that the final
publication of the electoral roll had been
made before making of the nominations.

10.

Some decisions regarding
delimitation of the constituencies may be
profitable noticed at this stage. In
Meghraj
Kothari
Vs.
Delimitation
Commission, AIR 1967 SC 669, a
notification
of
the
Delimitation
Commission, whereby a city which had
been a general constituency was notified
as reserved for the Scheduled Castes, was
challenged on the ground that right of
candidate for election to the Parliament
from the said constituency had been taken
away. If was held that the impugned
notification
was
a
law
relating
to
delimitation of the constituencies or the
allotment of seats to such constituencies
made
under
Article
327
of
the
Constitution and that an examination of
Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation
Commission Act showed that the matters
dealt with therein were not subject to the
scrutiny of any court of law. In State of
U.P. Vs. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti
AIR 1995 SC 1512, which is a case
governed by the provisions of the U.P.
panchayat Raj the apex Court after
referring to the law laid down in Meghraj
Kothari (supra) observed as follows in
paragraph 11;

"..... If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K
and 243-Q in place of Article 327 and
1All] Mudi V. State Election Commission, U.P., Lucknow & others
75
Section 2 (kk) , of the Delimitation Act,
1950 if will be obvious that neither the
delimitation of the panchayat area nor of
the constituencies in the said areas and the
allotments of seats to the constituencies
could have been challenged or the Court
could have entertained such a challenge
except on the ground that before the
delimitation, no objections were invited
and no hearing was given, Even this
challenge could not have been entertained
after the notification for holding the
elections was issued...."

11. A similar controversy was
examined in Anugrah Narain Singh Vs.
State of U.P. Jt., 1996 (8) SC 733,
wherein the elections scheduled to be held
with regard to municipal corporations
governed
by
the
U.P.
Municipal
Corporations Adhiniyam, 1959, were
challenged.

With
regard
to
the
delimitation of the constituency, it was
held as follows in paragraph 25 of the
reports:

"..... The U.P. Act of 1959, however,
merely provides that the draft order of
delimitation of municipal areas shall be
published in the official Gazette for
objections for a period of not less than
seven days. The draft order may be
altered or modified after hearing the
objections filed, if any. Thereupon, it
shall become final. It does not lay down
that such an order upon reaching finality
will have the force of law and shall not be
questioned in any court of law. For this
reason, if may not be possible to say that
such order made under Section 32 of the
U.P. Act has the force of law and is
beyond challenge by virtue of Article
243-ZG. But any such challenge should
be made soon after the final order is
published. The validity of a final order
published under Section 33 of the U.P.
Act is beyond the ken of Election Court
constituted under Section 61 of the said
Act."

12. With regard to the electoral rolls,
the
Court
observed
as
follows
in
paragraphs 26 and 28 of the reports,
which are as under:

"Similarly, the electoral rolls have to be
prepared and published under Section 39
of the U.P. Act. If there is any mistake,
objections
can
be
filed
within
the
specified period and corrected on the
basis of the objections filed, if any. A
remedy by way of appeal has been
provided to a person aggrieved by the
inclusion, deletion or correction of the
name in the electoral roll. There is no
provision in the U.P. Act giving force of
law to the electoral roll after its
finalisation. However, Section 49 of the
U.P. Act contains a bar on the jurisdiction
of a civil court to entertain or adjudicate
upon a question whether a person is or is
not entitled to be registered in an electoral
roll for a ward or to question the legality
of any action taken by or under the
authority
of
the
State
Election
Commission in respect of preparation and
publication of electoral roll or to question
the legality of any action taken or of any
decision taken by the Returning officer or
by any other persons appointed under this
Act in Connection with an election.

"28. Therefore, so far as preparation
of the electoral roll is concerned, there are
sufficient safeguards in the Act against
any abuse or misuse of power. In view of
these provisions and particularly, in view
of sub-section (6) of Section 39 which
provides
for
appeals
in
regard
to
inclusion, deletion or correction of names,
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
there is hardly any scope for a Court to
intervene and correct the electoral rolls
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In
fact , if this is allowed to be done, every
election will be indefinitely delayed and it
will not be possible to comply with the
mandate of the Constitution that every
Municipality shall have a life-span of five
years, or less, if dissolved earlier, and
thereafter fresh elections will have to be
held within the time specified in clause
(3) of Article 243-U. Having regard to
the provisions for filing objections and
also the right of appeal against inclusion,
deletion and correction of names and also
to the constitutional authority of the
Election Commission to give directions in
all matters pertaining to elections, the
Court should not have intervened at all on
the basis of allegations as to preparation
of electoral rolls."

13. The principle laid down in the
case of Anugrah Narain Singh (Supra) is
fully applicable to the present case as well
. We are therefore, clearly of the opinion
that after the publication of final electoral
roll and commencement of the election
process, no challenge to its correctness
can be entertained by means of a writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution. The electoral roll is
sacrosanct and its correctness cannot be
challenged in an election petition filed
under Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat
Raj Act as well.

14. Sri Ravikant has submitted that
preparation and publication of electoral
rolls is not a part of the process of the
election and can, therefore, be challenged
in a writ petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution. In support of his
submission he has placed reliance on
Lakshmi Charan Sen and others Vs.
A.K.M. Hassan Uzzzaman and others,
(1985) 4 SCC 689, (paragraphs 26 and
28) and Indrajit Barua and others Vs.
Election Commission of India and others,
(1985) 4 SCC 722. In our opinion, the
principle laid down in the aforesaid cases
do not have any application to the
controversy in hand. In Lakshmi Charan
Sen (supra), which was a case governed
by Representation of People Act, it was
observed that notwithstanding the fact
that the roll contains errors and they have
remained to be corrected, or that the
appeals in respect thereof are still
pending, the Returning officer is under an
obligation to publish the roll by virtue of
rule 22. It was further held that the fact
that certain claims and objections are not
fully disposed of, even assuming that they
are filed in accordance with law, cannot
arrest the process of election to the
Legislature and the election is to be held
on the basis of the electoral roll which is
in force on the last day for making
nominations. In Indrajit Barua (supra) it
was
observed
that
even
unrevised
electoral roll continues to be effective for
election to the parliament and other
legislatures. In paragraph 12 of the
Reports, it was observed:
"Preparation of electoral rolls is not a
process of election. In a suitable case
challenge to the electoral roll for not
complying with the requirements of
the law may be entertained subject to
the rule indicated in Punnuswami
case. But the election of a candidate is
not open to challenge on the score of
the electoral roll being defective."
15. The aforesaid observations do
not at all support the case of the
petitioner. On the contrary, they support
the view which as been taken by us. The
learned counsel for the petitioner has also
referred to another decision of the Apex
1All] J.N. Chaturvedi, Advocate V. Commissioner/D.M., Allahabad U.P., & others
77
Court in Chief Commissioner of Ajmer
Vs. Radhey shyam Dani, AIR 1957 SC
304. This cases relates to election to
Ajmer Muncipal Committee which was
governed
by
Ajmer
Merwara
Muncipalities Regulation 1925, which has
not been produced before us. The facts of
the case show that the writ petition had
been filed challenging the order of the
Electoral Registration officer by which an
application for rectification of the mistake
in parliamentary electoral roll had been
rejected. In a writ petition challenging the
said order the Judicial Commissioner,
Ajmer, restrained the District Magistrate
from holding the elections and poll to the
Ajmer
Municipality
Committee.
The
question of election being challenged on
the ground of some error or mistake in the
electoral roll, therefore, did not arise for
consideration in the said case. We fail to
see as to how this decision can be of any
assistance to the petitioner.

16. For the reasons mentioned
above, we find no merit in the writ
petition
which
s
hereby
dismissed
summarily at the admission stage.

Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-1 &KDWXUYHGL $GYRFDWH +LJK &RXUW
$OODKDEDG 52 % (OJLQ 5RDG &LYLO
/LQHV $OODKDEDG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
&RPPLVVLRQHU
$OODKDEDG
'LVWULFW
0DJLVWUDWH $OODKDEDG DQG 2WKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DKXO &KDWXUYHGL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 91 6ULYDVWDYD
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 1HHG
RI SURSHU UDLQ DJH V\VWHP HVVHQWLDO SDUW
RI OLIH OLQH RI FLW\ RQO\ WKH EXUHDXFUDWV
DORQH FDQQRW VROYH WKHVH SUREOHPV WKH
FLWL]HQ
PXVW
DOVR
LQYROYHG+LJK
OHYHO
&RPPLWWHH FRQVWLWXWHG DGYRFDWHV EHLQJ
UHVSHFWDEOH VHFWLRQ RI SHRSOH QRPLQDWHG
FKDLUPDQ
DQG
WKH
PHPEHUV
RI
WKH
6RFLHW\
+HOG
,Q RXU RSLQLRQ WKH WLPH KDV FRPH LQ WKLV
FRXQW\ ZKHQ WKH SUREOHPV KDYH EHFRPH
VR ELJ WKDW EXUHDXFUDWV DORQH FDQQRW
VROYH WKHP +HQFH WKH FLWL]HQV PXVW DOVR
EH
LQYROYHG
LQ
VROYLQJ
WKHLU
RZQ
SUREOHPV
,Q D GHPRFUDF\ WKH SHRSOH
DUH VXSUHPH DQG KHQFH DOO DXWKRULWLHV
DUH DFFRXQWDEOH WR WKH FLWL]HQV :H KDG
LQ WKLV SHWLWLRQ HDUOLHU VHW XS FRPPLWWHH
E\ RXU RUGHU GDWHG XQGHU WKH
FKDLUPDQVKLS RI 'U 56 'ZLYHGL 6HQLRU
D
$GYRFDWH
RI
WKLV
&RXUW
DQG
WKLV
&RPPLWWHH
6KDOO
EH
NQRZQ
DV
WKH
$OODKDEDG
&LWL]HQV
&RPPLWWHH
7KH