PREM RATAN VOHRA Vs. M.G. PIMPUTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a resident of Chembur in Bombay. His name was shown in the Municipal Election Roll, which came in force from December 20, 1956, A new list of voters was prepared before August 1, 1960, as required by Sub -section (1) of Section 19 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner was not in Bombay in August and September 1960. The petitioner's case is that when he was in Delhi, he learnt that his name had been omitted from the list of voters. On August 25, 1960, he, therefore, addressed a letter to the Municipal Commissioner, requesting that his name and the names of other members of his family should be entered in the electoral roll. This letter was not received in the Municipal office. A supplementary list of voters was published on November 1, 1960, as provided in Sub -section (13A) of Section 19 of the Act. According to the petitioner, he learnt on November 10, 1960, that his name was not in the supplementary list. On November 11, he sent another letter to the Municipal Commissioner, in which he requested that his name should be entered in the list of voters. The petitioner also met the Municipal Commissioner. On November 19, he was informed that as he had made his request for enrolment of his name at a very late stage, it could not be entertained in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 19 of the Act, Against the refusal of the Commissioner to enter the petitioner's name in the electoral roll, the petitioner applied to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court. His application was rejected, as the learned Judge came to the conclusion, that the petitioner's application had been rightly rejected by the Commissioner, because the petitioner had not applied in time for his name being entered in the list of voters.

(2.) FROM the judgment of the learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, it appears that he was not inclined to believe the evidence of the petitioner that he had addressed a letter to the Municipal Commissioner on August 25, The Municipal Commissioner has denied that any such letter was received in his office. Consequently, we must proceed on the basis that no application was made to the Municipal Commissioner before September 1, 1960,

(3.) MR . Gokhale, who appears on behalf of the, petitioner, has strenuously eon -tended that Sub -section (12) gives a power to the Commissioner to revise the list, even if no claim has been made under Sub -section (8). He has pointed out that the primary obligation of preparing a correct list of voters and of seeing that the name of every person, who is entitled to be enrolled as a voter, is included in the list of voters, is that of the Commissioner. He has, therefore, urged that even though a claim may not have been made under Sub -section (8), if the Commissioner has information in his possession, which shows that a person's name had been wrongly omitted from the list, the Commissioner may in his discretion direct the inclusion of his name in the list under Sub -section (12). Mr. Gokhale has further argued that the view taken by the Commissioner in his letter addressed to the petitioner on November 19, 1960, that he could not entertain the petitioner's application because of the mandatory provisions of Section 19 is erroneous. We are unable to accept these arguments. The Legislature has in Section 19 enacted provisions for ensuring that the electoral roll is made as accurate as possible and that no person's name is wrongly included in or omitted from it. A provisional list is first prepared and published. Claims and objections are then invited. If any claims are allowed, a supplementary list is prepared. This is again published and objections are entertained in regard to names newly included. After these have been disposed of, a final list is prepared. Under Sub -section (9) objections may be raised to the inclusion of any names in the first list published under Sub -section (6). Sub -section (13A) provides for calling for objections even in respect of the supplementary list of voters prepared by the Commissioner after the disposal of the claims made under Sub -section (8) for inclusion of additional names in the list. Under these sub -sections, therefore, no person's name can be retained in the list without the other voters being given an opportunity to object to his name being included therein. The object of the Legislature is, therefore, clear and that is that the list of voters should not contain the names of any disqualified persons and persons who under the Act are not qualified to be. voters. Provision has, therefore, been made for the entertainment of objections to names included both in the first and the supplementary lists. If we were to accept the arguments of Mr. Gakhale, the position would be that the Commissioner would have the power to include additional names at the last moment, without inviting objections and without the other voters having an opportunity to satisfy him that those persons are really not entitled to be enrolled as voters. This will be manifestly inconsistent with the scheme of Section 19, which is that the public or rather the voters should be given an opportunity to object to the inclusion of any names in the list and to show that such names have been wrongly entered and should consequently be deleted. If Sub -section (12) was to be interpreted as contended by Mr. Gokhale that the Commissioner can under this sub -section act suo motu or on the basis of information received by him from any source, the Commissioner will also have the power to delete or omit from the list the names of persons, whose names in his opinion have not been correctly included therein. He will, therefore, be able to omit anyone's name from the list, without that person having an opportunity to satisfy him that he was lawfully entitled to be enrolled as a voter. This could not possibly have been intended and would be against the provisions of Sub -sections (9) and (13A), under which no person's name can be omitted from the list without a notice being served upon him and without his being given an opportunity to show that his name had been rightly entered in the list. The arguments advanced by Mr. Gokhale that the Commissioner can under Sub -section (12) revise the list on the basis of the materials or information in his possession, after the list had been published and advertised under Sub -sections (6) and (7), even though no claims or objections had been filed under Sub -section (8) or (9), cannot, therefore, be accepted.