BALARAM HARIRAM KULAMBI Vs. GIRDHARLAL TULSIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is an application by one of the voters enrolled in a panchayat constituency in the Dhar District, from an order of the Collector ostensibly under Rule 11 of the Madhya Pradesh Gram Panchayat Election and Co-option Rules, 1963. That order itself was in effect the setting aside of an earlier order by the authorized officer (who was the Block Development Officer in that district) acting under Rule 8 and exercising the powers of the Collector himself The earlier order rejecting the claim of the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to be entrolled as voters in that constituency was made on objection filed by the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is two-fold; firstly, the order passed by the Collector or the authorized officer, as the case may be, under Rule 8 in disposal of claims and objections is final and is not subject either to an appeal before the Collector acting as such or any review before the Collector or the authorized officer. Thus it is contended that the Collector or as for that matter, the authorized officer was not competent to reconsider under Rule 11 what had been already decided under Rule 8 and had become final. Secondly, even assuming that the Collector was competent to hear the same matter over again under Rule 11 when it had already been heard and disposed of under Rule 8, he should not have acted in the manner he did, that is, heard the representation of the opposite party and admitted further evidence by affidavits and disposed of the matter in their favour without inviting the petitioner whose objection was on record to come and show cause why the earlier order should not be set aside and the opposite party entered as voters. The factual part of the controversy centred round the question whether the opposite party was ordinarily resident in the panchayat area or any adjoining town area; but we are not concerned with the facts in these proceedings.

(2.) THE Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Act of 1962 is a long one; but we are concerned with sections 5 and 6. THE first section provides that for every Gram Sabha there should be a list of voters prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act under the superintendence, direction and control of the Collector or such officer not below the rank of a Naib-Tahsildar as may be authorized by him in this behalf. It is also provided in sub-section (2) of that section that the State Government should make rules consistent with the Act generally providing for the preparation, revision and correction of the list of voters from time to time and its publication. THE general rule-making provisions are contained in section 318 and this comes under heading (1) of sub-section (2) of that section. Section 6 of the Act defines the qualification for registry in the list of voters in a Gram Sabha area; -we are otherwise not concerned with that here because we are not going to investigate the factual part of the controversy.

(3.) THE sheet-anchor of the petitioner's case is that the "Correction" under Rule 11 is something substantially different from the "revision" under Rule 8, and once a list has been revised in accordance with the latter rule it is final as far as the revision goes and cannot be altered whether by the Collector or by the authorized officer on a reconsideration of any of the claims and objections which have already been considered and disposed of. THE correction under Rule 11, it is urged, is to meet fresh situations created by fresh happenings such as, for example, the death of any of the listed voters or the qualification of anybody not listed by attaining majority or removal of disqualification and the like. It might also be based upon change of residence; some listed voter who has left the constituency will have to be de-listed and a new arrival resident in the constituency for the qualifying period will have to be freshly listed. In other words, the correction is to keep the list up to date. What the Collector had done under the cover of correcting under Rule 11 is a review or reconsideration or an appeal from the order of the authorized officer made under Rule 8. Incidentally, it is urged that the Collector has done it without hearing the objector; but the main thesis is that he cannot in any event do the revision over again.