Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
G. NAGAPPA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT21/07/1975
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1975 AIR 1708 1976 SCR (1) 57
1976 SCC (1) 204
ACT:
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Ss. 13 and 14 and
Mysore Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1965,
r. 75-scope of power of State Government to cancel calendar
of events fixed by Returning officer.
HEADNOTE:
Section 13 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964,
provides that for the purpose of election of councillors of
a town municipality at a general election the State
Government shall, after previous publication by
notification, determine, (a) the number of territorial
divisions into which the municipality shall be divided. (b)
the extent of each territorial division; (c) the number of
seats allotted to each territorial division. and (d) the
number of seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and women.
Section 14 provides that the electoral roll of the State
Legislative Assembly for the territorial area comprised in
the division, shall be deemed to be the list of voters of
such division Rule 75 of the Mysore Municipalities (Election
of Councillors) Rules, 196 empowers the State Government to
make such orders as it deems fit for ensuring that the
elections are held in accordance with the provisions of the
Act.
For holding a general election with respect to a town
municipal council, the State Government issued the
notification under s. 13. Thereafter the Returning officer
issued a notice fixing the calendar of events for holding
the election. The list of voters for each division was
prepared exactly according to the Electoral Roll, and kept
open for inspection In the office of the municipal council.
A list of the contesting candidates was also published and
the poll date was also fixed as January 10, 1975. At that
state it was found that some voters residing in the border
of one division had been included in the voters’ list of an
adjoining division and the State Government, in purported
exercise of the power under r. 75, cancelled the calendar of
events published by the Returning officer and directed a
fresh preparation of the voters’ list as per the divisions
notified. In a writ petition filed by the respondents, who
were residents of the town, the High Court held that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
State Government had no power to cancel the calendar of
events and quashed the direction of the State Government.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court,
^
HELD: (1) What is required by s. 14(1) is that the list
of voters of a division should correspond ipsissima verba
with the Electoral Roll for the territorial area included in
the division. of there is any mistake in the Electoral Roll
in the some voters residing in one area or house number are
shown as residing in another, it cannot be corrected by the
Returning officer while preparing the list of voters for
that division. The only way in which such mistake can be
corrected is by applying for rectification of the Electoral
Roll under s. 22 of the Representation of the People Act,
1950, but of such rectification is not made the entries in
the Electoral Roll would stand and they would necessarily be
reflected in the list of voters for the division. But that
would not constitute a mistake so far as the preparation of
the list of voters for the division is concerned. It is only
if the list of voters for the division does not correspond"
with the concerned Electoral Roll in the sense that the
voters shown in the Electoral Roll as residing in the
territorial are omitted to be included in the list of voters
of that division or voters shown In the Electoral Roll as
residing in the territorial area of one division are
included in the list of voters of another. that it can be
said that the List is defective and not in accordance with
the provisions of the Act [64D-H]
58
(2) The scheme of the Act and particularly ss. 14 and
15 show that it is only one list of voters that is
contemplated to be in force during the entire process of
election, and there is no question of correcting the list of
voters according to the revised Electoral Roll which had
come into being in February, 1975. [65G-H]
The list of voters is to be prepared for the election
tnd ’election’ means the entire process consisting of the
several stages and embracing the several steps by which an
elected member is returned. [65H]
Section 14(1) does not contemplate a list of voters
which keeps on changing from time to time during the
election process. It deems the Electoral Roll for the
territorial area of the division in force at the relevant
time to be the list of voters for the division for the
purposes of the Act that is, for the purposes of the
’election’. Section 14(3) enacts that every person whose
name is in the list of voters referred to in sub-s. (1)
shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member for
the division to which such list pertains. Section 15 (2)
also says that the list of voters shall be conclusive
evidence for the purpose of determining under this section
whether the person is qualified or not qualified to vote or
to be elected. The sub-sections refer to the same list of
voters and it is, therefore, clear that the legislature did
not intend that the list of voters should change from time
to time during the process of election and the relevant
Electoral Roll for the purpose of preparation of the list of
voters must consequently be taken to be the Electoral Roll
in force at the date when the election process commenced,
that is when the calendar of events was published. [66A-F]
Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, [1957]
S.C.R. 68, explained .
N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning officer, Namakkal
Constituency & Ors, [1952] S.C.R. 218, followed
Shivappa Chanamallappa jogendra v. Basavannappa
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
Gadlappa Bankar, [1965] Mysore L.J. 289. approved.
Obiter: Till the election process has commenced by the
issue of a notice fixing the calendar of events. there is no
reason why the designed officer should not be entitled to
rectify the list of voters for a division if it can be shown
that the list of voters does not correspond exactly with the
Electoral Roll for the territorial area and bring the list
of voters in conformity with the Electoral Roll, but once
the calendar of events is published and the election process
has begun it is extremely doubtful whether any changes can
be made in the list of voters for the purpose of setting
right any such defect. [67-C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 561 of
1975.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated 6-2-1975 of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition
No. 48 of 1975. G
L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India and M.
Veerappa, for the appellants.
V. M. Tarkunde,, S. S. Javali, A. K. Srivastava and B.
P. Singh, for respondent Nos. 1-9, 16, 17, 19-21 & 26-30. H
H. B. Datar and R. B. Datar, for respondent Nos. 18 &
25.
59
The judgment of the Court. was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-There is a town called Gangawati in The
State of Karnataka. It had a Town Municipal Council
constituted under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964.
The term of office of the Municipal Councillors elected at
the last General Elections expired by efflux of time in
1962, but instead of holding a General Election to
constitute a new Town Municipal Council, the State
Government appointed an Administrator to exercise the powers
and perform and discharge the functions and duties of the
Town Municipal Council and also constituted an Advisory
Council to advise and assist the Administrator. The
appointment of the Administrator and the constitution of the
Advisory Council were challenged by one of the residents of
Gangawati in the High Court of Karnataka by Writ Petition
No. 2405 of 1972. The writ petition was, however, settled as
the State Government gave an undertaking that it would take
the necessary steps for holding a General Election within a
reasonable time. This happened on 6th February, 1974. The
State Government thereafter, in accordance with the
undertaking given by it, appointed the Returning Officer on
25th February, 1974 and it looked as if the General
Elections was at last going to be held. But this hope was
belied. Before the Re turning officer could issue a notice
fixing the calendar of events forth election, the State
Government rescinded the Notification which had been issued
by it earlier under s.13 of the Act determining inter alia
the territorial divisions into which the Municipality shall
be divided. The result was that no further steps could be
taken by the Returning Officer in the matter of holding the
election. Angered and frustrated by this second attempt on
the part of the State Government to bulk the holding of the
election, the same individual, who had filed the earlier
writ petition, preferred another writ petition, namely, Writ
Petition No. 2715 of 1974. for a mandamus to the State
Government to hold the election. The High Court made an
order on this writ petition on 7th August, 1974 directing
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
the State Government to hold the election within four
months. This time was later extended to 8th March, 1975.
Pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the State
Government issued a Notification dated 3rd December, 1974
under s. 13 of the Act determining the territorial divisions
into which the Gangawati Municipality shall be divided for
the purpose of holding the election and allotting number of
seats to each territorial division. The Gangawati
Municipality was divided into six territorial divisions and
each territorial division was defined and demarcated by
reference to census block numbers, wards and also
boundaries. The Returning officer there after on 7th
December, 1974 issued a notice fixing the calendar of events
for holding the election. The Tehsildar, who was the
designated officer under s. 14, sub-s. (2), in the
meanwhile, prepared the list of voters for each division
from the Mysore Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll
(hereinafter referred to as the Electoral Roll) by including
in the list parts of the Electoral Roll referable to the
census block numbers comprised within the division. The list
of voters for each division so prepared was authenticated by
the designated officer and kept open for inspection in the
office of the Municipal Council. A
60
large number of nominations were filed on or before the last
date fixed for it in the calendar of events and after
scrutiny and withdrawal, a list of the contesting candidates
was published by the Returning officer on 21st December,
1974. The only step which remained to be taken to complete
the process of election was the poll which was fixed on 10th
January 1975.
However, on 21st December, 1974, when the question of
finalisation of polling stations was taken up by the
Returning officer, the Secretary of the Congress Party
raised an objection that the division wise lists of voters
prepared and authenticated by the designated officer were
defective "inasmuch as voters who reside in one division are
being made to vote in a different division" and that these
lists of voters should, therefore, be rectified before
fixing up the polling stations. The Returning officer
considered his objection and by an order made on the same
date rejected it. This order is very material and we will,
therefore. reproduce it in full. It reads inter alia as
follows:
"It is seen from the list maintained that the
population in the parts of voters list tallies with the
proposal made to Government for the delimitation of the
constituencies. Further it is seen that the various
parts included in the division- wise voters list
conform to the census block numbers which are mentioned
in the notification published in regard to the
declaration of delimitation of territorial divisions.
It also fits into the ward-wise description of
constituencies as declared by Government.
However, it is too late in the day to prefer
objections about voters list. The voters list was open
for inspection all along. Many interested parties have
obtained copies of the same. Nominations have been
filed by respective parties on the basis of the same
voters list and the scrutiny has been completed and
valid nominations have been declared and today at 3.00
p.m. Last date for withdrawal is also over and the list
of polling stations is finalised.
At this juncture, it is regretted to declare that
parties cannot be allowed to go back to the period
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
prior to scrutiny of the nomination papers, especially
so when there was not one word of objection or protest
over the voters list at the appropriate time. As per
section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act,
1950 no amendment or deletion of any entry in the
electoral roll should be made or given effect after the
last date for making nominations in that constituency
or division. Any change in the parts of the Division of
Voters will amount to an amendment of electoral roll of
that division."
It appears that three of the contesting candidates and a
member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Congress
Party were dissatisfied with this order and they, therefore,
made an application to the Deputy Commissioner pointing out
what they thought were defects in the division-wise lists of
voters. The Deputy Commissioner instructed the
61
Returning officer to make physical verification of these
defects and the Returning officer accordingly went to the
respective places where the mistakes were alleged to have
occurred and after verification, made a report dated 27th
December, 1974. In this report, the Returning officer stated
that: "It was found during my random inspection of the
various houses on the borders of the different divisions
that some voters residing adjacent to one division have been
included in another ad joining division and the voters list
in respect of each division has been formed accordingly."
The Returning officer observed that as a result of this
physical verification it was found that ’the number of;
voters ill the respective division would undergo
considerable change" and gave figures showing that the
change in the number of voters in each division would be in
the neighborhood of twenty-five per cent. Basing itself on
this report, the State Government, by an order dated 30th
December, 1974, canceled the calendar of events published by
the Returning officer and directed him to issue fresh
calendar of event. "after getting the voters lists completed
strictly as per the division notified." Though this order
did not refer to the provision of law under which it was
purported to be made, the State Government claimed that the
source of its power to make this order lay in rule 75 of the
Mysore Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made under s.38 of
the Act. The petitioners. who are residents of Gangawati,
finding that the State Government had again tried to fish
out some excuse for putting off the general election,
preferred the present writ petition questioning the validity
of this order made by the State Government. The High Court,
by a judgment and order dated 6th February, 1975 held that
the State Government had no power under rule 75 to cancel
the calendar of events validly fixed by the Returning
officer and set at naught the election process which had
already commenced and in this view, quashed and set aside
the order of the State Government and directed the Returning
officer to hold the elections "from the Stage at which it
was interrupted by the impugned Government order after
fixing convenient dates for the remaining events so that the
election may be completed before 8th ’ March, 1975." The
State Government challenges the correctness or this view in
the present appeal brought with special leave obtained from
this Court.
The hearing or this appeal concluded on 2nd May 1975
which was the last working day for the Court before the
commencement of the summer vacation. Since the appeal
involves the question as to the holding of the election and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
delay in the pronouncement of the order might defeat the
object of filing the appeal, we pronounced our order
immediately after the conclusion of the hearing, dismissing
the appeal with costs and directing the Returning officer to
complete the election before 10 June, 1975. We now proceed
to give our reasons.
The question which arises for determination in the
appeal is as to whether the State Government had power under
rule 75 to make the impugned order cancelling the calendar
of events and thereby in effect setting at naught the entire
election process which had proceeded upto the stage of poll.
Rule 75, which is the last amongst the Rules, in the
following terms:
62
"Notwithstanding anything contained in these
rules, the State Government and subject to the general
or special orders of the Government, the Commissioner
shall have the power of superintendence, direction and
control of the con duct of elections under these rules,
and may make such orders as it or he deems fit for
ensuring that the elections are held in accordance with
the provisions of the Act."
lt is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal to
embark on a discussion on the wider question as to what are
the different circumstances in which the power conferred
under rule 75 can be exercised by the State Government and
what kind of order can be made by the State Government in
exercise of such power. It would indeed be inexpedient and
unwise to draw the precise lines within which the power
under rule 75 should be exercisable, for there may be
infinite valid circumstances which may call for exercise of
such power What we need consider here is only the limited
question whether on the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the State Government had power under rule 75
should be exercisable, for there may be infinite calendar of
events fixed by the Returning officer. If such power could
not be found in rule 75, it was common ground that there was
no other provision in the Act or the Rules which would
justify the making of the impugned order and it would
plainly be invalid.
Now, the only justification pleaded by the State
Government in support of the exercise of the power under
rule 75 was that the division wise lists of voters prepared
and authenticated by the designated officer were defective
and if the election were held on the basis of such defective
lists of voters, it would not be in accordance with the
provisions 1.‘ of the Act and hence the impugned order had
to be made by the State Government for ensuring that the
election was held in accordance with the provisions of the
Act as contemplated under rule 75. This justification,
plausible though it may seem, is, in, our opinion, without
merit. To test its validity it is necessary to understand
the nature of the defect from which according to the finding
of the Returning officer, the divisional lists of voters
suffered and see whether that defect brings the case within
the scope and ambit of rule 75.
We may first refer to a few relevant sections of the
Act. Sec. 13 provides that for the purposes of election of
councillors at a general election, the State Government
shall, after previous publication, by notification,
determine (a) the number of territorial divisions into which
the municipality shall be divided, (b) the extent of each
territorial division, (c) the number of seats allotted to
each territorial division which shall be not less than three
and not more than five, and (d) the number of seats, if any,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and for women in each
territorial division. It was in obedience to the requirement
of this section that the State Government issued the
notification dated 23rd December, 1974 determining inter
alia the divisions in which the Gangawati Municipality shall
be divided for the purpose of holding the election. The
extent of each division was defined and demarcated in the
Notification with great precision by reference to the
63
census block numbers which had been given to the different
areas at the time of the census. These areas were clearly
and definitely identifiable by their census block numbers,
particularly as the extent of each census block number was
well defined and it was known with definiteness and
certitude as to which houses were comprised in it. There
was, therefore, plainly and manifestly no doubt or
uncertainty about the extent of each of the division into
which the Gangawati Municipality was divided by the
Notification.
Section 14 is the next important section which deals
with the subject of list of voters. It has four sub-sections
of which the first three are material. They are as follows:
"(1) The electoral roll of the Mysore Legislative
Assembly for the time being in force for such part of
the constituency of the Assembly as is included in a
division of a municipality shall, for the purpose of
this Act, be deemed to be the list of voters for such
division.
(2) The officer designated by the Deputy
Commissioner in this behalf in respect of a
municipality shall maintain a list of voters for each
division of such municipality
(3) Every person whose name is in the list of
voters referred to in sub-section (1) shall unless
disqualified under any law for the time being in force,
be qualified to vote, at the election of a member for
the division to which such list pertains."
What shall be the qualification of a person to stand as a
candidate at an election is laid down in s. 15, sub-s. (1).
That sub-section provides that every person whose name is in
the list of voters for any of the divisions of the
municipality shall, unless disqualified under this Act or
any other law for the time being in force, be qualified to
be elected to the election for that division or any other
division of the municipality and every person whose name is
not in such list shall not be qualified to be elected, at
the election for any division of the municipality. Then
follows sub-s. (2) which is of some importance. We quote it:
"Subject to any disqualification incurred by a
person the list of voters shall be conclusive evidence
for the purpose of determining under this section
whether the person is qualified or is not qualified to
vote or is qualified or is not qualified to be elected
as the case may be, at an election."
Section 38 confers power on the State Government to make
rules to provide for or regulate all or any of the matters
set out in the section for the purpose of holding election
of councillors under the Act. It was in pursuance of this
section that the Rules were made by the State Government.
It will be seen on a plain reading of sub-s (1) of s.
14 that the electoral roll for the territorial area
comprised in a division is to be deemed to be the list of
voters for such division. The designated officer is merely
to perform the operation of scissors and paste-cut
64
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
out those portions of the electoral roll which relate to the
territorial area included in the division and paste them
together so as to form the list of voters for the division.
There is no separate qualification laid down in the Act for
being placed in the list of votes for a division laid down
in the Act for being placed in the list of votes for a
division as was the case in Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v.
Radhey Shyam Dani. In that case, s. 30, sub-s. (2) of
Ajmer-Merware Municipalities Regulation, 1925 laid down tow
conditions which must be fulfilled in order to entitle a
person to be enrolled as an electoral of the Ajmer
Municipalities Regulation, 1925 laid down two conditions
which must be fulfilled in order to entitle a person to be
enrolled as an electoral of the Ajmer Municipalities,
namely, (1) that he should be entitled under the
Representation of the People Act, 1950 to be registered in
the electoral roll for a Parliamentary Constitution, if the
constituency had been co-extensive with the Municipality,
and (2) that his name should be registered in the electoral
roll for a Parliamentary Constituency comprised in the
Municipality. It was for this that the name of a person
should be registered in the electoral roll of a
Parliamentary Constituency. That did not entitle him
straightaway to be included in the electoral roll of the
Municipality. It was further required to be seen whether he
was entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of the
Parliamentary Constituency. That enquiry was necessary to be
made before the electoral roll of the Municipality could be
prepared. But, here no other qualification is required :
the mere fact of a person being in the Electoral Roll for
the territorial area comprised in a division is sufficient
to include him in the list of voters for such division. Vide
sub-s. (1) of s. 14. What is required by this sub-section is
that the list of voters of a division should correspond
ipsissima verba with the Electoral Roll for the territorial
area included in the division. If there is any mistake in
the Electoral Roll, in that some voters residing in one area
or house number are shown as residing in another, it cannot
be corrected by the Returning Officer while preparing the
list of voters for each division. The Returning Officer has
to take the Electoral Roll for the territorial area of the
division as it is, with whatever mistakes there may be in it
and that would be the list of voters for the division. The
only way in which the mistakes, if any, either in the names
of the voters or in their addresses, including house numbers
in which they reside, can be corrected is by applying for
rectification of the Electoral Roll under s. 22 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1950. So long as such
rectification is not made, the entries in the Electoral Roll
would stand and they would necessarily be reflected in the
list of voters for the division. But they would not
constitute mistakes, so far as the preparation of the list
of voters for the division is concerned. It is only if the
list of voters for the division does not correspond with the
Electoral Roll for the territorial area comprised in the
division, in the sense that voters shown in the Electoral
Roll as residing in the territorial area of the division are
omitted to be included in the list of voters, or voters
shown in the Electoral Roll as residing in the territorial
area of another division are included in the list of voters,
that it can be said that the list of voters is defective and
not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
65
Now in the present case, it is clear from the order of
the Returning officer dated 21st December, 1974 that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
list of voters for each division corresponded fully and
completely with the Electoral Roll for the territorial area
comprise in such division. The finding of the Returning
officer was that the various parts of the Electoral Roll
included in the list of voters for each division conformed
to the Census Block numbers of the respective division
mentioned in the Notification dated 3rd December, 1974. Each
division was defined and demarcated by reference to Census
Block numbers and the parts of the Electoral Roll were also
made out on the basis of Census Book numbers. There could,
therefore, be no doubt or confusion as to which parts of the
Electoral Roll related to the territorial area comprised in
a particular division. The correspond parts of the Electoral
Roll could be easily ascertained and identified by reference
to Census Block numbers for preparing the list of voters for
each division. that was admittedly done in the present case
and there was no complaint about it. No defect was also
alleged or found in this respect. The only defect if at all
it can be cared a defect-which the Returning officer noticed
on physical verification was that the voters shown ill the
Electoral Roll as residing in the territorial area or one
division were in fact residing in another. But, as already
pointed out above that cannot be regarded as a defect in the
division-wise list of voters and it would not stamp them
with the vice of not being in conformity with the
requirements of the Act. The State Government was, there
fore, in any view of the matter, not entitled to make the
impugned order under rule 75 on the ground that the
divisional lists of voters were defective and the election
held on the basis of such lists of voters would not be in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. What the State
Government did by making the impugner order was to interfere
with the election process which was going on in accordance
with law and that was clearly not permissible on any
interpretation of rule 75.
That takes us to the alternative argument advanced by
the learned Solicitor General on behalf of the State
Government. He contended that in any event even if the
impugned order was bad and the election process was liable
to be continued from the stage at which it was interrupted,
the poll could be taken only on the basis of the revised
Electoral Roll which had come into being, in the meanwhile,
in February 1975 and, therefore it was necessary for the
designated officer to correct the divisional lists of voters
so as to bring them in accord with the revised Electoral
Roll. This contention is also without force. lt is true that
there is no provision in the Act similar to s. 23 sub-s. (3)
of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 providing that
no amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry in the
list of voters for a division shall be made and no direction
for the inclusion of any name in such list of voters shall
be given after the last date for making nomination for an
election in the division. But the scheme of the Act and
particularly sections 14 and 15 make it clear that it is one
list of voters for each division that is contemplated to be
in force during the entire process of election. The list of
voters is to be prepared for the election and ’election’
means the entire process consisting of several stages and
embracing several steps by which an elected member is re-
66
turned, whether or not it is found necessary to take a poll.
Vide: N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning officer, Namakkal
Constituency & ors.(1) The list of voters must, therefore, a
fortiori remain the same throughout the process of election.
There cannot be one list of voters for determining the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
eligibility to stand as a candidate and another for
determining the eligibility to vote, at the sane election.
That would not only be irrational, but would also introduce
confusion and uncertainty in the election process.
Candidates would not know at the time when they file their
nominations as to what is the strength and composition of
the electorate in the division m which they are contesting
the election. They would also be handicapped in canvassing-
for votes. It would indeed be a strange and anomalous
position if there were two or more different lists of
voters at different stages of the same election Sub-s. (1)
of s.14 does not contemplate a this of voters which keeps
on changing from times to time during the election t
process. It deems the Electoral Roll for the territorial
area of the division, in force at the relevant time to be
the List of voters for the division "for the purpose of the
Act", that is for the purpose of election which is the whole
process culminating in a candidate being declared elected
and not merely polling. The same list of voters is,
therefore, to prevail for all stages in the election. This
we find emphasised also in sub-s. (3) of s.14 which enacts
that every person whose name is in the list of voters
referred lo in sub-s. (1) shall be qualified to vote at the
election of a member for the division to which such list
pertains. Sub-s. (2) of s.15 also points in the same
direction. It says that "the list of voters shall be
conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining under
this section whether the person is qualified or is not
qualified to vote or is qualified or is not qualified to be
elected as the case f may be, at an election." The reference
here, as matter of plain grammar, is indisputably to the
same list of voters which is to be conclusive evidence for
both purposes. lt is, therefore, clear, on a proper
interpretation of the provision of the Act that the
Legislature did not intend that the list of voters should
change from time to time during the process of election and
the relevant Ellctoral Roll for the purpose of preparation
of the list of voters must consequently be taken to be the
Electoral Roll in force at the date when the election
process commenced, that is, the date when the calendar of
events was published. The same view was taken by a revision
Bench of the Mysore High Court in Shivappa Chanamollappa
Jogendra v. Basavannappa Gadlappa Banker. (") We are in
agreement with that view. The poll in the present case must,
therefore, be taken on the basis of the list of voters for
each division prepared with reference to the Electoral Roll
in force on 7th December, 1974, that being the date on which
the calendar of events was published by the Returning
officer.
One other question was also raised before us, namely,
whether the designated officer can be required to rectify
the list of voters for a division, if it can be shown that
the list of voters does not correspond exactly with the
Electoral Roll for the territorial area of the division, as
for example, some voters in a particular house in a Census
Block number falling in the division, though shown in the
Electoral Roll as
67
such, are, through inadvertence, omitted to be included in
the list of voters for the division. It is not necessary for
the purpose of the present appeal to decide this question,
but we may point out that tall the election process has
commenced by the issue of notice fixing the calendar of
events, there is no reason why the designated officer should
not be entitled to rectify such defect in the list of voters
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
and bring the list of voters in conformity with the
Electoral Roll. But once the calendar of events is published
and the election process has begun, it is extremely doubtful
whether any changes can be made in the list of voters for
the purpose of setting right any such defect. We, however,
do not wish to express any final opinion on this point.
These were the reasons which weighed with us in making
the order dated 2nd May, 1975 dismissing the appeal with
costs and directing the Returning officer to complete the
election before 10th June 1975 on the basis of the Electoral
Roll in force on 7th December 1914.
V. P. S. Appeal dismissed
68