Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.

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 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 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 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.