HARBANS LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harbans Lal petitioner has challenged the election of respondents 2 to 6 to the Market Committee, Zira, in the election held on 4th April, 1965.

(2.) In all nine members were to be elected to the Market Committee, Zira, and of these five were to be elected from the producers of the notified Market Area by the Panches and Sarpanches of the Gram Panchayats situated within the said notified Market Area. The persons who contested the election were the petitioner Harbans Lal and respondent 2 to 10. The petitioner obtained 46 votes in the election held on 4th of April, 1965 while respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 obtained 61, 59, 58, 49 and 48 votes respectively.

(3.) The election is challenged on the ground that no electoral roll of the voters was published as required by Rule 3 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Election to Market Committee) Rules, 1961. Under this rule, the Deputy Commissioner, for the preparation and publication of electoral rolls, has to obtain from the Panchayat Department in Form 'A' a list of Panches and Sarpanches of the Gram Panchayats situted within the notified Market Area. On the basis of this information, the elctoral roll is to be puslished. It is not denied that the last date for objections to the electoral rolls was 23rd February, 1965. An allegation has been made in the petition, and this is not denied that till the end of March, 1965, the Market Committee, Zira, had been pressing the Deputy Commissioner to supply it with a list of voters. In the written statement, which is somewhat equivocal, 'all that is said is that the electoral list was sent for preparation on the 23rd of Febrary, 1965. There is no proof that any such list was ever pbulished. Under sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 : "The Deputy Commissioner shall, soon after the objections have been heard of objections publish in the manner laid down in sub Rule (3) the final electoral roll and shall cause to be printed a sufficient number of copies of such rolls for supply to such person as may apply for the same. Under sub-rule (3),copies of the preliminary lists of electors of each category "shall, as soon as they are ready, be published and consequently by the Deputy Commissioner for inviting objection of the public. According to the petitioners, the preliminary list of electors was never published and consequently no objections were preferred. It is pointed out that after the election was over, it was discovered that the names of Mahan Singh and Labhu. Members of Panchayat of village Gurdittiwala were not included in Form A. It is further pointed out that Hardasa village is within the notified Market area of the Market Committee, Zira, but the name of Atma Singh, Sarpanch ofthe said village, was not included. Another objection is that voters of village Sodhiwala were wrongly included in the list and they were also voters in Market Committee, Talwandi Bhai. It is not necessary for the petitioners to establish that the faulty preparation of the electoral roll has materially affected the election results. What is in the forefront of the argument of the petitioner is that there was no preliminary publication of the electoral roll and consequently no objections could be preferred to the final list which became available only on the eve of elections. This objection appears to me to be very vital. The preparation of electoral roll is of primary importance for elections in a democratic society. When an electoral roll is not there, it is not possible for the persons who wish to be included in it or for those who wish to object to inclusion of certain names to file their objecations.