# P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR - **Citation:** [2003] Supp. 4 S.C.R. 84 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2003-09-26 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3602 of 2002 - **Bench:** V.N:.~Hare, ~.~Ujes, 1-Lj~Ym, 1.R.A~D.~.f3. SU'{HA - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/p-t-rajan-v-t-p-m-sahir-19449 - **Pages:** 37 ## Headnote ' 'l • _, . • I • . . " . ' l -i~. '. • "" 4 I i : J Representation of the People Act, 1950; Ss. 2(b), 21, 22 and 23(3)1 .. • • • I 1" '1 . ' ( L • j • - • • . ~ 1 I 1 ' l ' • • - Representation of the People Act,1951; Ss. 2(d) and (e}, 62, 98 and JOO/ '" ~·I - ···~ "'",(It __ :< tf~ 1 '·••1· I I " -• • Electors Rules, 1960; Rules::>, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 26: l' , c, · . ~l~ct!ot~.Petitio,~-;-F;(~f,tO,~al r, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 26: l' , c, · . ~l~ct!ot~.Petitio,~-;-F;(~f,tO,~al r Availability ofa final electoral roll with the candidate is, thus, a matter H 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A of great importance for him. There cannot further be any doubt whatsoever that the right to vote having regard to section 62 of the 1951 Act vis-a-vis Article 326 of the Constitution of India is a valuable right. A petson in terms of Section 62 of.the 1951 Act is entitled to exercise his right of franchise or is disabled therefrom if his name does B or does not find place in the electoral roll. 1104-B-C-D) 1.2. In terms of the Registration Of electors Rules, 1982, a claim or an objection can be entertained by at least seven days prior to the date of filing of nominations. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act in no uncertain terms provides for statutory injunction upon the C authorities to make any revisions in the electoral roll after the last date fixed which indisputably having regard to the law laid down by this Court in a number of decisions would mean 3 p.m. of the date of filing the nominations. It, ex facie, is imperative in character. It has been couched in a negative language. The word 'shall' has also been used. D What is thereby, however, prohibited is that after 3 p.m. of the date specified for filing of the nomination on correction by way of amendment, transposition or deletion of the entry can be made. Publication of Electoral Roll, however, is not mandatory. (104-G-H 105-A-B] E 2.1. The mother roll in the instant case has been published in the year 1999. Final revision had also taken place in the years 2000 and 2001. Revision in 2001 had taken place in two periods, namely, from 15.3.2001 to 18.3.2001 and from 21.4.2001 to 23.4.2001. The revision carried out in the year 2000 as also during 2001 would be valid in law. F Having regard to the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section i • 23 of the 1950 Act, there cannot be any doubt that any order passed immediately before 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, the prescribed cut-off date would be valid. The very fact that the said sub-section prohibits any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency is a pointer G to the fact that till 3 p.m. of the date specified for· filing nominations, directions for any amendment can be issued. (105-H, 106-A-B-C] 2.2. It may be true that a person whose name appeared in the ;- electoral roll at the time of filing of the nomination cannot be deleted H thereafter and similarly no new names can be added. But the purport •' P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR 87 and object of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act is to enable A a person to exercise his right of affording his candidature cannot be taken away. If the name of such person was not included in the mother roll, his remedy was only to file an application for inclusion of his name in terms of Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules. An order on such application, therefore, was required to be passed in terms of Section 22 of the 1950 B Act read with relevant provisions of the 1960 Rules immediately pri~r to 3 p.m. of the specified date for filing nominations. Once such directions are issued, evidently, publication of the list in terms of Form No. 16 would be only upon incorporation of directions f~r making amendment, transposition or deletion of names. (105-E-F) 2.3. A statute must be read in the text and context thereof. c Whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not be dependent on the user of the words "shall" or "may". Such a question must be posed and answered having regard to the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. Jn the present case, what is mandatory is the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act and not the ministertal D action of actual publication of Form 16. (107-D] 2.4. The construction of statute will depend on the purport and object for which the same had been used. It is well-settled principle of law that where a statutory functionary is asked "to perform a statutory E duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory and not mandatory. A provision in a statute which is procedural in nature although employs the word "shall" may not be held to be mandatory if thereby no prejudice is caused. The Court cannot, it. is trite, supply casus omissus. Rule 22(b) of the 1960 Rules cannbt, therefore, be interpreted to mean that publication of the electoral roll F must take place before the time of filing nomination and not thereafter. [107-G, 108-A, 108-C-D, 109-D] Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur, [1965) 1 SCR 970; State Bank of Patio/a v. S.K. Sharma, [1996] 3 SCC 364; Venkataswamappa v. Special Dy. Commr. (Revenue), [1997) 9 sec 128; G Rai Vimal Krishna & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 401; Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin & Ors., AIR (1988) I SC 2267; Kanta Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India & Anr., [2003] 4 SCC 753 ... and Shrimati Tarulata Shyam & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1997) 3 sec 305, relied on. H '· A B 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha v. The District Magistrate of Monghyr & Anr., AIR (1966) Patna 144; Nomita Chowdhwy v. The State of West Bengal & 01:s., (1999) 2 CLJ 21 and Garbari Union Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Limited & Anr. v. Swapan Kumar Jana & Ors., (1~97) 1 CHN 189, referred to. .' ' 3.1. The law, it stands, would require a strict pleading and proof of the factors enumerated in Section 100 of the 1951 Act for obtaining a declaration that the elecJion was a void.one. Such a declaration can . only be made upon con~ideration of the materials, b~ought on reco;as:· .. The eJ~dion tri~uilaLwill have jurisdiction to issμe such a dite~tion ... c only in tJ,e.eve'ntone or the ofher factors enumerated· in the sub~clauses ~ ,; ··: con.tait)ed in ~lib-section (I) of Section 100 of the t 951 Aet are fulfilte which was revised on 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001 purported ~o be in terms of H 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A continuous and special revision scheme. One revision was carried out between 15.3.2001 and 18.3.2001 and another between 21.4.2001 and 23.4.2001. The final elec~bral roll was published on 23.4.2001. Despite the fact that the last date of acceptance of nomination was 3 p.m., allegedly, the final elector~) rol.J was published at 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001. The electoral B roll consisted of 1,52,225, voters out of which 1,05,437 voters exercised their franchise. The resutt'ofthe election was declared on 13.5.2001. The first respondent was declared elected having secured 48,886 votes whereas the second respondent secured 48.099 votes. 1;'he third and fourth respondents herein obtained 7,345 and l,107 votes respectively. The winning margin C was, thus, only 787 votes. In the election petition, the appellant herein alleged that after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, names of 19,045 voters were deleted from the voters list: whereas 6,828 new names were added therein. The fact which, however, D stands admitted is that in the 2001 revision, names of 18,839 vo~ers were deleted whereas names of 7,003 voters were added. The appellant herein in the election petition further alleged that the electoral roll as it stood at 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 which had been published E prior thereto became final on the expiry of the time fixed for acceptanc~ of nominations for election and, thus, the deletion of names of 19,045 voters from the said roll withuot issuance of any notice was bad in law, as thereby the genuine voters who turned up at the polling stations had been turned away. Allegedly the majority of such persons .were known supporters of the Left Democratic Front whose candidate was the second F respondent. It w\<; also furthermore contended that the names of 6,828 persons were illegally added after the publication of the final electoral roll on the said date; the majority of whom voted in support of the United Democratic Front to which the first respondent herein belonged to. According to the appellant, the .said electoral roll in view of the prohibition G contained in Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, 'th~·l 950 Act') was void ab initio, as a result whereof the ' election of the first respondent became vitiated by reason of improper refusal of votes of 9 ,500 persons and improper reception of votes of 4,500 persons, which being void could not have been taken into consideration H for the purrose of the result of the election. ~ . ' P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 91 ISSUES: Having regard the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues : A "(I) Has the petitioner adequate cause of action to challenge the B declaration of results made on 13.5.2001? (2) Whether the E,P. is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? (3) Whether the E.P. is liaple to be rejected/dismissed for want C of adequate pleadings? ( 4) Whether the names of 19045 voters were deleted from the final electoral roll after 23.4.200 I without notice to them and in violation of law? (5) Whether the refusal of voting right to the 19045 voters has materially affected the result of the election? D (6) Whether the additional list of 6828 voters were added to the E final electoral roll after 30.4.2001? (7) Whether may of the said 6828 ineligible voters have voted for the 1st respondent affecting the declaration of results?" (8) Relief and costs?" FINDINGS OF THE HIGH·COURT : F The preliminary issues were decided in favour of the appellant by an order-dated 24. I 0.200 I. The said order is not in question in this G appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the election petition holding : (I) Although irregularities had been committed in preparation and publication of the electoral roll, as the appellant herein had not been able to prove that the H .f!~, 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A legal requirement contained in Section I 00(1 )(d) of the 195 l Act was fulfilled, the election· of the first respondent cannot be set aside; "(2) P.W. l and P.W. 2 who were examined on behalf of the appellant herein to show that their names were not included despite request.were not relied upon on the ground that they had made the said request after 23.4.2001 B and as such their request had rightly been denied; (3) The appellan·t did not produce an authenticated copy of the electoral roll. in foll form to find out the alterations which accor..ding to the appellant; were made subsequent to 3 p.m. nor produced any such altered roll; (4) Copies of the final electoral roll (FER) being Ext.Pl and Ext P2 filed in the proceedings being ·not certified .ones, thi;: same were inadmissible· in evidence;: (5) -The C appellant admitted that he h·ad 'no.knowledge about the precise date on whichlhe fin;;tl electoral roll was pub I isheCl; .( 6) A copy of the final electoral · · .roU:h~ving not been- filed, no finding .cati be)rrived at for determination · ·as to 'whether there had been any subsequent add,itiori or deietion; (7) No clinching evidence had.been adduced to sh~wthat there had actually.been · D an addition .of 787 votes or more·after 3 p.m. or deletion of that -number of votes thereafter; (8) No voters had come fonvard with a case that his right to vote was denied, although the same is a costitutional right under Article 326 of the Constitution of India; (9) Although the Election Officer who examined himself as P.W. I had not acted with responsibility, the E same did no_t have any direct effect in the outcome of the result; (I 0) Though irregularities had been committed in the matter of preparation of electoral roll but the same were insufficient to upset the result of the election. F G .H It was observed : " ... All these indicate that even after the last date, Jet alone the last hour for filing nominations, P.W.J might have entertained some applications for additions and effected deletions as well based on reports of.Anganwadi teachers received at the 13th hour. In fact, the petitioner has created a strong suspicion whether there was, in actual fact, any publication of the" final roll as claimed .by him in his notice board at all. The files produced by him do not contain the office copy of any notice published by him an.nouncin'g pubiication of the final electoral roll. whether it was published at ' 8 p.in. on the 23rd or thereafter." ' ' . > P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] SUBMISSIONS : 93 A The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter a!ia, submitted that in the instant case, there has been a flagrant violation of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act. The learned counsel would further contend that as the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 B Act is mandatory in nature, the violation thereofrendered the election void. He would urge that the election held pursuant to or in furtherance of the electoral roll prepared and published after 23.4.2"001at8 p.m. must be held to be wholly illegal rendering the election void ab initio. According to the learned counsel, the High Court misdirected itself in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the electoral C roll could not have been published at 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001. The learned counsel took us through the evidences of P.W.l, P.W.2, P.W.6, P. W. 8 and some other witnesses for the purpose of showing that the entire proceeding was wholly illegal and, thus, the election in its entirety should be set aside. The learned counsel would contend that the High Court should D have exercised its suo motto power of directing recounting of votes so as to exclude the illegal ones, having regard to section 62 of the 1951 Act. Reliance in support of the aforementioned contentions has been placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto and Others, AIR (1970) SC 314, Baidyanath Panjira v. E Sita Ram Mahto and Others, [1969] 2 SCC 47, Narendra Madiyalapa Kheniv. ManikraoPatil and Others, [1977] 4 SCC 16, Ramji Prasad Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha and Others, [1977} 1 SCC 260; Bashir Ahmad Magrey v. Ghulam Quadir Mir and Others, [1977] 1 SCC 285, I. Vikheshe Sema v. Hokishe Sema, [1996] 4 sec 53, D.B. Raju V. HJ Kantharaj and F Others, [1990] 4 SCC 178, Lal Babu Hussein and Others Etc. v. Electoral Registration Officer and Others Etc., [1995] 3 SCC 100, The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and Another v. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR (1857) SC 304 and Hafiz Mohammed Anwar Khan & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, AIR (1967) MP 257. G Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent, on the other hand, would submit that admittedly continuous and special revisions were carried out since 1999, the last one during the period 21.4.2001 and 23.4.2001. According to the learned counsel, a revision of electoral roll was also carried on between 15.3.2001 H 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. . A and 18.3.2001 and in that situation it was incumbent upon the appellant herein to plead and prove that in between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001, names of how many persons were added or names Of how many persons were deleted thereform. The learned counsel would contend that it has not and could not have B been the case of the appellant herein that names of7,003 voters were added and names of 18,839 voters were deleted after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, as admittedly the mother roll could be revised upto ~ p.m. on 23.4.2001. Mr. Venugopal would urge that in law it is not necessary to make C publication of'the electoral roll in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act by 3 p.m. of the date fixed for filing nomination inasmuch as the said provision contemplates mere issuance of directions by the specified authorities. While issuing such directions, the statutory authorities are required to assign reasons, as the said order would be appealable ones. D The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the provision of Section 100( 1 )( d) of the 1951 Act despite preparation of irregular electoral roll, it is necessary to plead and prove that by reason thereof, the result of the election had been materially affected. Strong reliance in this regard has been placed on G.K. Sama! v. R.N. Rao and Others, ( 1972) 44 Eelction E Law Reports 25. The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contentions also relied on Vashit Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra and Others, [1955] 1 SCR 509. Paokai Haokip v. Rishang & Others, [1969] 1SCR,637, Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh and Others, [1988) 2 SCC 12, J. Chandra f Sekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao and Others, [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 229, Uma Ballav Ratfz (Smt.) v. Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt.) and Others, [1999] 3 SCC 357, Tak Chandv. Dile Ram, [2001] 3 SCC 290 and Santosh Yadav. v. Narender Singh, [2002] 1 SCC 160. Mr. Venugopal in his usual fairness has drawn our attention to a G decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram and Others, [ 1984) 2 SCC 281 wherein this Court had set aside the election, having regard to margin of 373 votes vis-a-vis wasted votes being 6, 110 (the difference being 20 times). However, it was pointed out that the said decision was held to have been rendered in the peculiar fact situation of H the case. , I ·, • ,, • P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 95 QUESTIONS: (I) Whether addition or deletion of names after the last date fixed for filing of nominations would invalidate the entire election? A (2) Whether an election petitioner must plead and prove as to B how far and to what extent such illegal addition or deletion of the names of voters had materially affected. the election? STATUTORY PROVISIONS : Before embarking upon the questions referred to hereinbefore, we C may look to some statutory provisions. The 1950 Act was enacted to provide allocation of seats in and the delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election to, the House of the People and the Legislatures of States, the qualifications of voters at such D elections, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling seats in the Council of States to be filled by representatives of Union territo"ries and matters connected therewith. Section 2(b) provides as under : E "Assembly constituency" means a constituency provided by law for the purpose of elections to the Legislative Assembly of a State; Section 21 reads as under : F "2 I. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls. (1) The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act. G (2) The said electoral roll - (a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in. writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date - H 96 A SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. (i) ·.before each general election to the H~use of People or to the Legislat!ve Assembly of a State; and (ii) before each bye-election to fill a c~sual vacancy in the seat allotted to the constituency; and . B (b) shall be revised in any year in the presctibed manner by c D E reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been . Jl ' . ' directed by Election Commission : · Provided that if the electoral roil is 'not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the s~id. electoral roll. shall not thereby be affected. .·:. · (3) Notwithstanding anythfng contained in sub-section (2), the Election_ Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, .direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit : .Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the ~ompletion of th~ special revision so directed." .~ection 22. provides as under : "22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.-If the electoral F ' registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or 'on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency - G H (a) is erroneous of defective in any particular, (b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ·ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residetice within the constituency, or (c) should be detected on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordi~arily resident in the r . .; t P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 97 constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in A that roll, the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general or special direction, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete B the entry : Provided that before taking any action on any ground und.er clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on t~e ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to C be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him." Section 23 provides as under : "23. Inclusion of names in electoral rolls. -(1) Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of hi$ name in that roll. (2) The electoral registration officer shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein : D E Provided that ifthe applicant is registered in the electoral roll F of any other constituency, the electoral registration officer shall. inform the electoral registration officer of that other constituency and that officer shall, on receipt of the information, strike off the applicant's name from that roll. (3) No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry G shall be made under section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A copmletion of that election." The 1951 Act was enacted to provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of B those Hous.es, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. c D E F Section 2(d) defines 'election' in the following terms : "2(d) "election" means an election to fill a seat or seats in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir." Section 2( e) reads as under : "2(e) "elector" in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who . is not subject to -any of the disqualifications mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 ( 43 of 1950);" Sub-section (I) of Sectjon 33 povides as under : "33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. (I) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of Section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the hours of eleven O' clook in the forenoon and three O' clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under section 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed fonn and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency .. ·•n; .,,as .proposer" '_}i ._ .• _ iJJ::~-r~~' 11 ~ ,:Af'.1: t t 1J:·:L t~~1i ~riJ 1'.-.f~n .i''>i.t:;:k >ill! :wmJ·'.~'.'.~2,. ~ig~f:Jf!.iY.n0~hH.1i,~, ne~L~i:ld,,f:XCept as HJ . p· ., ". ,~~P~~.~§lY: pf p,vAd.~.d. by th~;t\~~1 ·~':'.~i:Y P.~r,0~9.,~~.o i~,,;f\>r, the time t P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 99 being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be A entitled to vote in that constituency. (2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). B (3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more than one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies shall be void. (4) No person shall at any election vote in the same C constituency more than once, not withstanding that his name may have been registered in the electoral roll for the constituency more than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that constituency shall be void. · (5) No person shall. vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police : D Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a B person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the time being in force." Part VI of the 1951 Act provides for resolution of disputes regarding elections. Chapter I contains interpretation clauses; Chapter II deals with F presentation of election petitions to the High Court; Chapter III provides for trial of election petitions. Section 87 provides for procedure before the High Court Section 94 prohibits infringement of secrecy of voting. Section 98 read as under : "98. Decision of the High Court.-At the conclusion of the trial G of an election petition (the High Court) shall make an order - (a) dismissing the election petition; or (b) declaring the election of (all or any of the· returned candidates) to be void: or H 100 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200~] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. (c) declaring the election of(all or any of the returned candidates) to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected." Section 100(1 )( d) reads as follows : "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. - (1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion - Xxx xxx xxx (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected - (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitutibn or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidates to be void." In terms of the 1950 Act, the Central Government made Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1960 Rules'). In terms of the 1960 Rules any person whose name has been deleted from F the published draft roll will have to file an application for inclusion of his name. Part-II thereof concerns "Electoral Rolls for Assembly Constituencies". Rule 5 provides that the roll shall be divided into convenient parts. Rule 10 and 11 contemplate the publication of .draft rolls in the first place and G inviting of objections, if any thereto. Rule 12 reads as under : "12. Period/or lodging claims and objections.- Every claim for H the inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 101 therein shall be lodged within a period ofthirty days from the da'te A of publication of the roll in draft under rule 10, or such shorter period of not less than fifteen days as may be fixed by the Eelction Commission in this behalf : Provided that the Eelction Commission may, by notification in the B Official Gazette, extend the period in respect of the constituency as a whole or in respect of any part thereof." Rule 13 provides that every claim shall be made in Form No. 6 and signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the roll. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 povides that every objection to the inclusion of a name in C the roll shall be in Form No. 7 and preferred only by a person whose name is already included in that roll. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 provides that every objection to a particular or particulars in an entry in the roll shall be made in Form No. 8 and preferred only by the person to whom that entry relates. Rule 14 to 20 provides for the mode and manner in which claims and D objections and inquiry in relation thereto shall be made. Rule 21 provides for inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. Rule 21A provides for deletion of names. The said rules are as under : "21. Inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. -(I) Ifit appears to the registration officer that owing to inadvertence of error during preparation, the names of any electors have been left out of the roll and that remedial action should be taken under this rule; the registration officer shall - (a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors; E F (b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of the list together with a notice as to the time ~hd place at which the inclusion of these names in the roll w:ill be considered, and · also publish the list and the notice in such other manner as G he may think fit; and (c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should be included in the roll. H A B c D E F G 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. (2) If any statements under rule 7 are received after the publication of the roll in draft ·under rule IO, the registration officer shall direct the inclusion of the names of the electors covered by the statements in the appropriate parts of the roll." 21 A. Deletion of names - if it appears to the registration officer at any time before the final publication of the roll that owing to inadvertence or error or otherwise, the names of dead persons or of persons who have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily residents in the constituency or of persons who are otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, have been included in the roll and that remedial action should be taken under this rule, the registration officer, shall - (a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors; (b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of.the list together with a notice as to the time and place at which the question of deletion of these names from the roll will be considered and also publish the list and the notice in such other manner as he may think fit; and (c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should be deleted from the roll : Provided that before taking 'any action under this rule in respect of any person on the ground that he has ceased to be, or is not,.ordinarily resident in the constituency, or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the registration officer shall make every endeavour to give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the action proposed should not be taken in relation to him." Rule 22 provides for final publication of roll. Clause (b) of sub-rule (I) mandates the registration officer to publish the roll, together with the list of amendment, by making a complete copy thereof available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form No. 16 at his office. Sub-rule H (2) of Rule 22 provides that on such publication, the.