ORDER
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.
1. The petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the deletion of her name from the list of voters’ without notice or enquiry as arbitrary and illegal and for a direction to permit the petitioner to exercise her franchise in the election to the Lok Sabha scheduled to take place on 15-6-1991.
2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Kothapalli Village, hamlet of Candlaparthi, Ananthapur District. She says that she was registered as a voter on the basis of 1988 census in both the Assembly Constituency and the Lok Sabha Constituency and that she has been exercising her franchise from the time she became eligible to vote. It is stated that in the final list of voters for the current Parliamentary Elections she was alloted to polling booth No. 174 under 172 Ananthapur Assembly Constituency and her Serial No. in the list was 109. When the election agents distributed slips, they informed that her name was deleted from the voters list. That information was confirmed by the 1st respondent. She obtained a copy of the list of additions and deletions and noticed that her name was deleted from the list attached to Polling Booth No. 174 It is stated that she was not informed of the deletion of her name.
3. She also filed an additional affidavit stating inter alia that under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (for short “the Rules”), Rule 21-A empowers deletion of names of persons either dead or ceased to be ordinary residents of the place and that power can be exercised only after notice to the particular party. It is stated that the rule is not applicable and even if it is to be invoked, the name cannot be deleted without notice to the affected party. On these facts the petitioner prays for the writ as indicated above.
4. Sri D. Sudhakara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that without notice to the petitioner her name was deleted from the voters’ list, therefore, this Court can issue the writ as prayed for.
5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent, submits that under the Rules a right of appeal is conferred on the petitioner and she has not exercised that right and approached this Court without exhausting the statutory remedy, therefore the writ is liable to be dismissed.
6. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the said Rules. Rules 10 and 11 deal with the publication of the roll in draft add further publicity of the roll. Rule 12 entitles persons whose names are not included in the draft list to file objections within thirty days from the date of publication of the roll in draft under Rule 10. Rules 13 to 20 deal with the matters relating to the investigation into the claims, rejection or acceptance of the claims, objections and matters relating thereto. Rule 21 empowers the Registration Officer to include the name which were (sic) mitted. Rule 21-A deals with deletion of names and reads as follows :
21-A. Deletion of names: If it appears to the registration officer at any time before the final publication of the roll that owing to inadvertence or error or otherwise, the names of dead persons or of persons who have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily residents in the constituency or of persons who arc otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, have been included in the roll and that remedial action should be taken under this rule, the registration officer, shall,
(a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors ;
(b) exhibits on the notice board of his office a copy of the list together with a notice as to the time and place at which the question of deletion of these names from the roll will be considered, and also publish the list and the notice in such other manner as he may think fit ; and
(c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should be deleted from the roll ;
Provided that before taking any action under this rule in respect of any person on the ground that he has ceased to be, or is not, ordinarily resident in the constituency, or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the registration officer shall make every endeavour to give him a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the action proposed should not be taken in relation to him.”
7. A persual of the above rule makes it clear that if it appears to the registration officer at any time before the final publication of the roll that due to inadvertence or error, the names of dead persons or of persons who have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily residents in the constituency, or persons who are otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, have been included in the roll, he shall prepare a list of the names of such persons, exhibit them on the notice board and after considering written or verbal objections, decide whether the names should be deleted from the roll. The proviso however provides that every endeavour should be made to give a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the proposed action should not be taken. On the basis of the order final list has to be prepared under Rule 22. Obviously, in the instant case, the procedure under Rule 21-A should have been followed. But the petitioner did not choose to file objections before the registration officer. Rule 23 provides for an appeal from the orders deciding claims and objections. The petitioner did not file an appeal under Rule 23 also. Rule 26 gives the right for inclusion of the names. But the petitioner did not choose to file an application even under Rule 26. Against an order under Rule 26 an appeal is provided under Rule 27.
8. It is thus clear that the remedies provided under the Rules against any error or omission in the electoral list, have not been availed by the petitioner before approaching this Court.
9. In Rampakavi Rayappa Belagali v. B.D. Jatti, the Supreme Court held :
“The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the amplitude of its provisions show that the entries made in an Electoral Roll of a constituency can only be challenged in accordance with the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any other forum unless some question of violation of the provisions of the Constitution is involved.”
10. Further, it may be noted that superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to the Parliament is vested in the Election Commission under Article 324 (1) of the Constitution. Article 329 of the Constitution specifically bars the jurisdiction of the Courts in regard to the electoral matters. The word ‘election’ in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution is interpreted in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer,( 1952 SCR 218) as follows :
“The word ‘election’ has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling, or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll.”
In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, the Supreme Court while affirming the above meaning, observed :
“Election covers the entire process from the issue of the notification under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act to the declaration of the result under Section 66 of the Act.”
The same view is reiterated in Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, . Therefore, it follows that after commencement of the election process this Court cannot interfere even in the matters which are required to be dealt with by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution and the remedy of the aggrieved party is to approach the authority competent to redress the grievance, if any, under the Rules.
11. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is a discretionary jurisdiction. If the effect of exercising that jurisdiction results in making the voters’ list uncertain by taking away the finality attached to it by issuing directions in the last mintue to add names to it, or delete names from the list and thus bring about chaos and confusion which hampers free and fair election, this Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. For the above-reasons, the writ petition cannot be admitted. It is accordingly dismissed.