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