AWADHESH PRASAD Vs. TARKESHWAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mahapatra J. quashing the election of Nadaul Gram Panchayat held in November-December 1963, on the ground that the election was vitiated by the use of more than one voters' list at different stages of the election. The electoral roll for the said Panchayat was finally published between the 8th and the 13th November 1963. The date for the filing of the nomination was fixed for the 16th November 1963, and the poll was fixed for the 21st December 1963. The respondents (who were the petitioners before the learned Judge) alleged that though they were voters in the electoral roll used for the previous election to the Panchayat in 1980, they were surprised to find that their names were removed from the list of voters in the electoral roll finally published in November 1983. They were further surprised to find that on the date of poll, i. e., the 21st December 1983, 127 new names were added to the electoral roll. The names of those persons are given in Annexure G attached to the petition. It was thus alleged that after the final publication of the electoral roll on the 13th November 1963, 127 new names were added just on the date of the poll, is consequence of which the entire election proceeding was vitiated. The learned Judge, following a previous decision of a Division Bench of this Court (to which he was a party), Bishwanath Prasad v. Ramji Prasad Sinha, AIR 1984 Pat 459, held that though an electoral roll may be amended from time to time in accordance with the rules, nevertheless the roll that was finally published and that was in force on the date of the commencement of the election to the Panchayat should be taken as final for the purpose of that election and that the rules do not contemplate any further addition or amendment to the roll till the date of poll. It is true that the said Division Bench decision related to the elections held in a municipality, but the learned Judge thought that the provisions of the Bihar Municipal Elections Rules and the provisions of the Bihar Panchayat Elections Rules, 1959, were almost identical on this subject and hence the principle laid down in the said Division Bench decision would apply with full force here also.

(2.) On behalf of the State of Bihar it was admitted that 127 names were added to the electoral roll in accordance with the provisions of Rule 26 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, But it was not stated either in the petition of the respondents or admitted in the counter-petitions Sled on behalf of the State of Bihar that any of the said 127 persons actually participated in the election by exercising their right to vote. I shall comment on this omission later on.

(3.) It is necessary to briefly refer to certain statutory provisions dealing with the preparation of electoral rolls for the Panchayat elections. In the old Panchayat Election Rules there were detailed provisions for the preparation of voters' list, for its draft publication, for inviting claims and objections and for the final publication of the voters' list by the Election Officer. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 13 of the old rules further stated that no person, other than the person whose name is entered in the register and the voters' list, shall have the right to vote. Sub-rule (2) of the said rule was as follows: "The register as finally published under Sub-rule (1) shall not be altered except as provided in Rule 7". It may, therefore, be reasonably inferred that under the old Panchayat Rules the register and the voters list when finally published for the purpose of an election cannot be further amended or altered during the course of that election.