ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The 1st petitioner is the Sarpanch of Karumanchi Gram Panchayat of Sivalyapuram Mandal, Guntur district. Petitioners 2 to 7 are the residents of that village. They challenge the action of the respondents herein in not including the names of the voters shown in the list submitted along with their representation dated 19-7-2002, in the voters’ list of 2002, pertaining to 108, Vinukonda Assembly Constituency, Guntur district, as well as in the list of Karumanchi Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to include the said names in the voters’ list.
2. Broadly stated, the relevant facts alleged by the petitioners are that the election to the MPTC seat of Karumanchi territorial constituency was held in the month of July, 2001 and the election to the Gram Panchayat of that village was held in August, 2001, on the basis of the voters’ list prepared for the Vinukonda Assembly constituency. The 2nd respondent has undertaken the revision of voters’ list in the month of January 2002. It is alleged that the names of about 150 voters, which figured in the voters’ list of 1999 Assembly Elections were found missing. The affected persons made applications to the 2nd respondent in January, 2002 itself and no action was taken thereon.
3. The MPTC member of Karumanchi area died in July, 2001. When the by-election to the same was imminent, the petitioners verified the voters’ list and, to their surprise, were found that the names of petitioners 2 to 7 and several others were missing. The petitioners submitted a representation on 19-7-2002 to the respondents about the deletion of the names of genuine voters and requested them to conduct an enquiry. Acting on the representation, the 2nd respondent- the District Collector, directed the 4th respondent to make enquiry into the matter. It is stated that the 4th respondent visited the village on 17-8-2002, recorded the statements of several persons whose names were deleted and ultimately submitted a report. It is also stated that the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat had certified the fact that the persons, whose names were deleted, are residents of that village. The petitioners complain that the by-election to the office of MPTC is sought to be conducted on the basis of the alleged irregularities in the voters’ list in which the names of several genuine voters have been missing.
4. The 3rd respondent, who is the Electoral Registering Officer, filed the counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the revision of electoral roll was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules) framed under the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950 and the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls) Rules 2000, framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the power under Section 268 read with Section 11 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is admitted that the revision of electoral rolls of the Assembly Constituency was undertaken in January, 2002 and the particulars of the detailed programme were also furnished in the counter-affidavit. The draft electoral roll was to be published on 29-1-2002, the objections were to be received upto 28-2-2002 and the final publication of the rolls; was to be done on 28-3-2002.
5. It is stated that so far as Vinukonda Assembly Constituency is concerned, 150 claims were received in Form No. 6 for inclusion in the voters’ list of Karumanchi village and on enquiry, 50 names were found to be in order and, as such, their names were included in the voters’ list of the respective Polling Station Nos. 132 to 135. As regards deletion of the names from the voters’ list, it is stated that the same was undertaken by him in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Rules referred to above. Fax message dated 19-3-2002 was issued by the District Collector, on the ground that there was abnormal increase to the extent of 16.87% in the enumeration of voters in Vinukonda constituency as against 10.5%, which is considered to be normal. To sum up, deletion of the voters was not on the basis of individual claims or verification, but on the basis of suspicion and following the procedure prescribed under the Rules.
6. Sri D.S. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the deletion of the names of the petitioners 2 to 7 and several others was not only without basis, but is also contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above. He states that the respondents have deleted the names of those persons who are very much in the village, only on the basis of suspicion and without following the procedure prescribed by law. It is his contention that the deletion of the name of an individual from the voters’ list would not only affect the rights of that individual, but will have an impact on the electoral process as such.
7. The learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that during the process of revision of electoral rolls, at the stage of publication of Draft Electoral List of the Vinukonda constituency, there was abnormal increase in the voters, and in that view of the matter, the procedure stipulated under Rule 21-A of the 1960 Rules was undertaken. He states that since the procedure prescribed by the relevant Rules was followed no exception can be taken. It is also his contention that once the final electoral roll is published; the same cannot be interfered with. The other serious objection raised by him is that as long as the affected voters have not chosen to challenge it, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the electoral roll.
8. The local authorities, such as, Zilla Parishad, Mandal Parishad, Gram Panchayats, etc., were constituted and their administration was provided for under the various Acts, such as A.P. Zilla Parishad Act, A.P. Gram Panchayat Act, etc. In the year 1992, the Parliament amended the Constitution of India by inserting Part IX and addling Articles 243(a) to 243(o), through 73rd Amendment. This added Part dealt with Panchayats and their structures, with special emphasis on the elections. As a measure of providing further details as to working of the same, the A.P. State Legislature enacted A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) duly repealing the Acts, which hitherto held the field. Section 11 of the Act provides for preparation and publication of electoral role for the Gram Panchayat. In a way, this provision adopts the electoral roll prepared for the concerned assembly constituency published under the Representation of Peoples Act. To certain extent, the broad procedure stipulated under 1960 Rules, on one hand, and the one under Section 11 of the Act, are similar.
9. The respondents have undertaken general revision of electoral rolls in the month of January, 2002. Obviously, they had to follow the procedure prescribed under the 1960 Rules. As indicated above, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, had undertaken special revision of electoral rolls of Assembly constituencies with a programme, which was uniform to all the constituencies. The programme was as under:
1.
5-11-2001 to 4-12-2001
House to House enumeration
2.
5-12-20011028-1-2002
Preparation
of Draft Rolls and completion of related
work.
3.
29-1-2001
Publication
of Draft Electoral Roll.
4.
29-1-2001 to 28-2-2002
Period
for filing claims and objections.
5.
28-3-2002..
Final publication of Electoral Rolls.
10. In this writ petition, we are concerned with the revision of voters’ list of Karumanchi village, which is part of Vinukonda Assembly Constituency. The respondents state that for this village, they have received 150 claims for inclusion in Form No. 6. These claims were verified. In the verification, it emerged that only 50 of the said applicants were found eligible and accordingly their names were included in the voters’ list of the respective polling stations. The respondents do not state that during the process of verification, they found that the voters who figured in the voters’ list of 1999 have ceased to be residents of that place. The counter-affidavit does not state that the concerned officials have been provided with any other information as regards the same warranting deletion of the names of such persons. The contention of the petitioners is that the draft voters’ list contained the names of almost all those who figured in the 1999 list as well as those included for the first time. The basis for deletion of the names of about 600 voters from the draft list, was the doubt, entertained as regards the abnormal increase in the enumeration. The procedure followed therefor was narrated by the 3rd respondent in his counter-affidavit as under:
“It is submitted that the District Election Officer, has identified 6 assembly constituencies in Guntur District, where more than 10.5% (of the increase of electoral rolls during the Special Revision of Electoral rolls 2002, out of which 108 Vinukonda Constituency is registered as having 16.87% increase. In view of the instructions of the Election Commission of India and the District Election Officer, dated 19-3-2002, the Mandal Revenue Officers of the 108 Vinukonda Assembly constituency have checked the electoral rolls pertaining to their Mandate and after due enquiry, prepared a list of deletion in the villages, where the percentage of increase is more than 10.5% and published as per Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, inviting objections. Karumanchi village of Savalyapuram Mandal, is one such village, where the percentage of increase is more than 10.5. The said deletion list was prepared in respect of polling stations of Karumanchi village on 25-3-2002. The acknowledgment of such publication is filed along with the counter-affidavit. Thereafter, the final publication of electoral rolls was published on 28-3-2002.”
11. The inclusion or deletion of the names of citizens in the voters’ list is governed by the provisions of the Representation of the Peoples Act and the Rules made thereunder. A semblance of finality is attached to the process undertaken therefor. The Courts will be too slow to interfere with the said process. The process is comprehensive inasmuch as the crucial one-month’s time is provided for submission of names for inclusion or deletion. Except where the omission or inclusion is so glaring, the Courts would not adjudicate upon, or review the electoral rolls. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the preparation of electoral rolls constitutes the very basis, if not foundation, for the democratic process. If the electoral rolls do not represent the correct state of affairs, it will certainly affect the result of the elections. A true, correct and proper electoral roll is a sine qua non for democratic polity in its true sense. It is for this reason that while conferring certain powers to the electoral authority, the Courts keep with themselves the power to ensure that the preparation of the electoral roll is undertaken properly. While adding finality to the electoral rolls is a Rule, interference with the same is an exception.
12. In the present case, this Court is not called upon to adjudicate the individual claims and to find out as to whether an individual possesses the requisite qualification to be included in the voters’ list or ceased to hold the same, so as to be deleted. From the facts referred to above, it is evident that the en-masse deletion of 100s of voters was on the basis of certain doubts and by non following the procedure prescribed under Rule 21-A. Rule 21-A of the 1960 Rules reads as under:
“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 are 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) exhibit 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 rotation to him.
13. While inclusion of names is mostly on the basis of the applications or at the instance of the intending persons, deletion is a process which has to be undertaken by the enumeration staff, mostly on a voluntary basis. A reading of Rule 21-A of the 1960 Rules indicates the various circumstances under which the names of the persons can be deleted from the voters’ list.
14. Inasmuch as any inadvertent or wilful deletion of the name of a person, who is otherwise entitled to be continued on the roll, will result in serious consequences, the proviso to Rule 21-A sounds a serious note of caution and mandates that the Registration Officer shall endeavour to give such person reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why his name shall not be deleted. While the various provisions are general in nature, the proviso insofar as it mandates the Registration Officer to verify the facts as to deletion are personal with reference to the affected individuals. It obviously meant that before deleting the name of an individual from the electoral roll, he should be given a reasonable opportunity to show-cause as to why his name should not be deleted, for the reasons on the basis of which the proposed action is sought to be taken.
15. The 3rd respondent has stated that on the directions of the competent authority, the Mandal Revenue Officer, who is designated as Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, has displayed the list as regards whom he entertained doubt and since there was no objection for the same, the names of the persons in the list were deleted. This hardly constitutes compliance with the proviso to Rule 21-A. In a way, the entire process has been reduced to a mockery.
16. Whenever revision of electoral rolls takes place, there are bound to be inclusions and deletions, depending on certain social, economic and other relevant factors. The inclusion or deletion, as the case may be, the pattern of growth or decrease in the strength of voters in a given constituency, cannot be standardised. It is true that if there is an abnormal increase, the Electoral Registration Authorities have to be careful and verify as to whether the applicants, whose names are sought to be included, fulfilled the requisite conditions. En-masse deletion of the names, that too, from the existing voters’ list, would negate the spirit of democracy.
17. In the previous paragraphs, it was observed that when the revision was undertaken, the respondents received 150 applications for inclusion and on verification only 50 were found to be eligible. Indirectly, it indicates that the deletion undertaken by the respondents is names of those who have figured in the voters’ list of 1999. It was not as if during the process of revision, there was huge inflow of applications, their names were included in the Draft Electoral Roll and on a further scrutiny, their names were deleted. When the deletion was of the voters, who already figured in the previous electoral rolls, the respondents ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under proviso to Rule 21-A of 1990 Rules in its letter and spirit. The same does not appear to have taken place even if every statement made by the respondents in the counter affidavit is taken on its face value.
18. It is apt to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Laxmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, AIR 1985 SC 1233. It was held therein that Rule 21-A give suo motu power to the Registration Officer to delete the names of dead persons or of persons who are ceased to be the residents of that place. It was observed that a duty is cast on the political parties to educate the electorate and take steps for inclusion of the names of eligible persons and deletion of the names of ineligible persons in the electoral rolls. Dealing with the situation where en-masse inclusion or deletion are undertaken, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“But if a considerable number of the names of such persons are either wrongly included in, or excluded from, the electoral roll, it will be of great consequence to a particular party either in power or in the opposition. The electoral registration officer, therefore, cannot be fastidious as to whether the claims and objections are strictly in prescribed forms. Even when there are omnibus objections by a political party or political parties, as in this case, filing claims and/or objections, such claims and objections have to be inquired into and necessary action taken so that the correct opinion of the electorate may be reflected in the result of the election.”
19. It is also evident that when this anomalous situation was brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, he directed the 4th respondent to conduct enquiry. This fact is admitted in the counter affidavit itself. It is stated that in the enquiry conducted on 17-8-2002 in the village, out of 199 names furnished in the representation, only 92 persons attended the enquiry. He in turn submitted a report. The basis on which the 3rd respondent rejected to take any action on the basis of that report is stated by him in para 9 as under:
“The M.P.D.O. has not appended any remarks or furnished any list of names to be included but it contains only persons to be included out of the 199 persons. The M.P.D.O. has not written any remark on these applications. I perused the report of the M.P.D.O. and come to the conclusion that the applications received by the M.P.D.O. is not in accordance with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.”
20. Even the rejection of the report submitted by the 4th respondent does not appear to be on the basis of application of mind. The 3rd respondent did not exhibit the spirit, which was expected of it in the matter of deciding the valuable rights conferred on the citizens by the Constitution of India. The approach adopted by the 3rd respondent in this regard cannot be countenanced.
21. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that once the electoral roll is published, the same cannot be interfered with, that too, at the instance of the 3rd parties. He relied on several judgments. There is absolutely no quarrel with the proposition. However, it needs to be noted that the names of petitioners 2 to 7 have been deleted from the voters’ list during the revision. The 1st petitioner is the Sarpanch. As observed earlier, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not only recognised the rights of the political parties to ensure compliance in such matters, but an observation was made to the effect that they are under duty to educate the people as regards inclusion and deletion of their names in the electoral list. A Sarpanch of a village cannot be said to be a stranger or without any authority to ensure such compliance. The magnitude of the deletion was so large and so glaring that the respondents themselves have got an enquiry conducted through the MRDO, who in turn had conducted on the spot enquiry and submitted a report. Even that report was brushed aside without any cogent reasons.
22. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the exercise undertaken by the respondents in deleting the names of the persons furnished in the list by the petitioners cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. Their action in this regard is declared to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under 1960 Rules and the deletion so undertaken by the respondents is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions:
(a) The deletion of the names of the 199 persons from the Revised Electoral Roll of Karumanchi village, Sivalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District, referred to in the representation made by the petitioners is set aside;
(b) The Draft Electoral Roll published on 29-1-2002 shall stand restored;
(c) The 3rd respondent shall take steps to prepare the final Electoral Roll strictly following the procedure stipulated under the proviso to Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, duly giving notices to the affected persons and publish the final list thereafter.