JUDGMENT
S.N.P. Singh, J.
1. All the five petitioners belong to the community of the Swetamber Jains. In this writ application they have questioned the validity of the constitution of the Fourth Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts and have made a prayer for quashing the notices as contained in Annexures 1, 2 and 3 to the writ application.
2. In order to appreciate and decide the points in controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts and to refer to the relevant provisions of law.
3. In the State of Bihar there are a number of public religious trusts belonging to the Swetamber Jains including pawapuri Group of Temples and Rajgrih Group of Temples. The properties of the Swetamber Jain religious trusts and the right to administer the same vest in the Shree Sangha. To provide for the better administration of Hindu Religious Trusts and for the protection and preservation of properties appertaining to such trusts, the Bihar Hindu Religious Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be called “the Act”) was enacted with the assent of the President and was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary of the 21st February, 1951. As provided under Section 5 (2) of the Act, the First Bihar State Board of Swetambar Jain Religious Trusts was constituted. The President and members of the first Board were appointed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7 of the Act. The second and the sub-sequent Boards were to be constituted in accordance with the provisions as contained in Section 8 (2) of the Act. which, as originally stood, read as follows:
"8 (2). Of the members of the second and every subsequent Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts- (a) two shall be persons appointed by the State Government; (b) four shall be persons elected in the prescribed manner by [he trustees of the Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts registered under this Act; and (c) five shall be persons elected in the prescribed manner by the Shree Sangh (an assembly of Swetambar Jains)." In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 82 of the Act, the State Government made the Bihar Swetambar Jain Religious Trusts Rules, 1955 (hereinafter called "the Rules"). Rule 4 provides as follows: "(1) The election of members of the Bihar State Board of Swerambar Jain Religious Trusts under clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 8 shall be by the method of postal voting and by means of single transferable vote. (2) (a) The electoral roll in respect of the election of the members under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 shall be prepared in Hindi in Devanagri script by the President on the basis of the register of trusts maintained by him under Section 34. (b) The electoral roll prepared under Clause (a) shall contain the following particulars: (i) the name of each elector, (ii) the postal address of each elector, (iii) the name of the father or spiritual Guru of each elector, and (iv) the name of the religious trust of which the elector is a trustee.
(c) The electoral roll in respect of election of the members under clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 shall be prepared in Hindi in Devanagri script by the President. The President shall publish a notice in at least two Hindi newspapers, having circulation in the State, specifying the date, which shall not be less than 30 days from the date of publication of the notice, within which applications shall be received for enrolment of members in the electoral roll. No fee shall be charged for such applications and they may be presented in person to the office of the Board or sent by post.
(d) The electoral roll shall be hung up at a conspicuous place in the office of the Board and information will be sent to all the registered offices of the trusts registered under Section 34.
(e) Any objection regarding any mistake in the electoral roll may be filed in writing before the President within fifteen days of the date on which the roll is so hung up, and if no objection is filed within this period, the electoral roll shall become final. Any objection filed after this period shall be rejected.
(f) The President shall hold a summary enquiry into the objection, if any, filed under Clause (c) and shall record his decision which shall be final. The electoral roll shall, if necessary, be amended in accordance with the decision of the President and the roll shall thereafter become final.
(g) The President shall, as soon as may be, send at least two copies of the final electoral roll to the Returning officer.”
The second Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts was constituted in the year 1958 but was superseded on the 24th of October, 1962, under Section 80 of the Act and a Special Officer was appointed to carry out the functions of the Board. On the 2nd of April, 1964, the third Board was constituted under Section 8 (2) of the Act. That Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 32 of the Act settled schemes for the management of Pawapuri Group of Temples and Rajgrih Group of Temples. Two writ applications were filed in this Court, which were numbered as C.W. J. C. No. 436 of 1967 and C. W. J. C. No. 483 of 1967, challenging the scheme for the Pawapuri Group of Temples. Another writ application was filed, namely, C. W. J. C. No. 437 of 1967, in which the scheme for Rajgrih Group of Temples was challenged. All the three writ applications were heard together and they were allowed by a common judgment dated the 29th of August, 1968 (Vide AIR 1969 Pat 209). At the time of the hearing of the writ applications a contention was raised that the third Bihar State Board of Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts was illegally constituted and as such the scheme framed by it was void. It appears that the electoral roll for electing five members of the Board under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act had been prepared in pursuance of a notice issued by the Board dated the 16th of August, 1963. In accordance with that notice the electoral roll was to be prepared so as to include the names of Swetarabar Jains above 21 years of age residing in the State of Bihar and also the names of those Swetambar Jains residing outside the State of Bihar who had donated Rs. 500/- either to the Board or to the Swetambar Jain Religious Trusts, Bihar, during the preceding ten years. It was contended that such a direction in the preparation of the electoral roll was discriminatory, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. The Bench of this Court held that even the State Government had no power to make a rule that in the electoral roll all residents of Bihar professing Swetambar Jain faith and above 21 years of age would be entitled to be included as electors while on the other hand, only those out of a large body of Swetambar Jain residing outside Bihar would be eligible to be entered as electors who had contributed Rs. 500/- either to the trust or to the Board within the last ten years. Such a rule would have contravened the provisions of the Act and would have been in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles. 14 and 26 of the Constitution. The electoral roll was, therefore, prepared on the basis of illegal instructions issued on the 16th of August, 1973 and as such it was void ab initio. That being so, the election of the five members under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act was also void ab initio. After the decision of this Court in the aforesaid three writ applications, the State Government appointed one Shri Savailal Keshavlal Shah of Calcutta as the Special Officer of the Board by notification dated the 18th of November, 1968, and the Special Officer assumed office on the 21st of November, 1968.
4. On the 21st of February, 1969, notices were published in some of the newspapers including ‘Aryavarta’ inviting applications for enrolment; under Rule 4 (2) (c) as voters for electing members of the Board under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act. Two writ aplications were filed in this Court in which the validity of Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act was challenged. Those writ applications were numbered as C. W. J. C. No. 520 of 1969 and C. W. J. C. No. 759 of 1969. The two writ applications were heard separately. In C. W. J. C. No. 759 of 1969, which was disposed of on the 15th of June, 1970, a Bench of this Court held that the intention of the Legislature is clear that it is an assembly of Jains (Swetamber or Digamber Samaj of the Jain community) in the State of Bihar alone which will have its representation on the Board. In that case Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act was declared to be invalid inasmuch as no age was prescribed and so even a minor or a child could be a voter (vide 1971 BUR 24). In C. W. J. C. No. 520 of 1969 also it was held that Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act, in so far as it did not specify any age limit of a member of the Shree Sangh in order to be qualified to be a voter, was invalid. It was observed in that case as follows :
“It is open to the State Government to amend Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act suitably so as to define its scope preferably to avoid ambiguity to make it confined to Bihar or as the case may be, and also to lay down the age-limit” (vide AIR 1971 Pat 401).
In view of the decisions in the two writ applications, Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act was amended. The amended Clause (c) of Section 8 (2) provides as follows:
“Bihar Rajya men niwas karne wala Swetambar Jain Samuday ke un sadasyoa dwara vihit riti se nirwachit vyakti panch honge jo Bihar Rajya ke kisi Vidhan Sabha nirwachan chhetra ki tatsamay pravrit nir-wachak vihit namawali men nirwachak ke roop men namankit hon.”
5. On the 30th of November, 1971, a notice was issued under the signatures of the Special Officer and the Superintendent inviting applications for the enrolment of voters for election under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act by the 30th of December, 1971. A copy of that notice has been made An-nexure ‘1’ to the application. On the 26th of December, 1971, another notice was published in the newspaper extending the date of enrolment up to the 20th of January, 1972. A copy of that notice has been made Annexure ‘2’ to the application. On the 21st of January, 1972, another notice was published in the newspaper extending the date up to the 15th of March, 1972. A copy of that notice has been made Annexure ‘3’ to the application. As stated in the writ application, Shri Savailal Keshavlal Shah, the Special Officer, died on the 9th of May, 1972. After his death the office of the Special Officer remained vacant for some time. By a notification dated the 12th of August, 1972, Shri B.C. Jain, Superintendent, was made the Special Officer, Shri Jain published an election notice in exercise of the powers under Rule 5 (b) of the Rules in the issue of the Searchlight dated the 13th of August, 1972, for election of the members of the Board under Section 8 (2) (b) and (c) of the Act. According to that notice the 23rd of August, 1972, from 11 A. M. to 3 P. M. was fixed as the date for filing the nomination papers. The time of scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed at 3.30 p.m. on the same date. The 26th of August, 1972, was fixed as the last date of withdrawal of candidature from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. The 25th of September, 1972, was fixed as the date on which poll was to take place, if necessary. The 26th of September, 1972, was fixed as the date for the counting of votes. As stated in the writ application, Sri Kamal Singh Badalia (petitioner No. 1) filed his nomination paper on the 23rd of August, 1972, his name having been proposed by Sri Dhirendra Kumar Sheth (petitioner No. 5) and seconded by Manilal Manekji Jain (petitioner No. 4). Shri Mungal Chand Jain (petitioner No. 3) also filed his nomination paper, his name having been proposed by one Amrit Lal Jain and seconded by one Sri Sumermal Jain. Shri Shantilal Bagaria (petitioner No. 2) also filed his nomination paper, his name having been proposed by Shri Mangal Chand Jain (petitioner No. 3) and seconded by one Amrit Lal Jain. Copies of the nomination papers have been made Annexures 5, 5/1 and 5/2 to the writ application. The names of petitioners 1, 2 and 3 and their proposers and seconders were included in the voters’ list of Assembly constituencies. It is alleged that at 3.30 p.m. on the 23rd of August, 1972, Shri B. C. Jain informed petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 that their nomination papers stood rejected as their proposers and seconders did not enrol themselves as members in response to the notices (Annexures 1, 2 and 3). It is further alleged that Shri B. C. Jain published the names of five persons under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act, namely Navratan Mull Surana, Anand Chand Jain, Gyan Pal Singh Jain, Udairaj Khajanchi and Shanti Kumar Jain. According to the statement made in paragraph 31 of the writ application, Shri Navratan Mull Surana is a resident of Calcutta and is not a voter in any of the constituencies in the State of Bihar. Tn paragraph 32 of the writ application it has been stated that Shri Gambhir Chand Bothra and Shri Shiva Chand Jhabak, who have been nominated by the State Government, are not residents of the State of Bihar and are not voters in any of the assembly constituencies in the State of Bihar. It appears that ultimately a notification constituting the fourth Bihar State Board of Swetambar Jain Religious Trusts was issued on the 26th of August, 1972. A copy of that notification has been made Annexure ‘6’ to the writ application.
6. Before dealing with the contentions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioners, I would like to dispose of one point which has been raised in the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners on the 5th of April, 1973. It was stated in the supplementary affidavit that Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act was amended by Ordinance No. 77 of 1971 which came into force on the 19th of July, 1971. It is also stated in the supplementary affidavit that both the Houses of the Bihar Legislature assembled from the 20th of March, 1972, to the 12th of April, 1972. According to the petitioners, the Ordinance spent its force and ceased to be valid on and from the 30th of April, 1972. This point was not pressed by Mr. Prabha Shankar Mishra when copies of Ordinance No. 37/72 dated the 28th April, 1972, Ordinance No. 106 of 1972 dated 5th July, 1972, and Ordinance No. 143 of 1972 dated 24th September, 1972, were produced on behalf of the resoondents.
7. Mr. Mishra, however, in support of this writ application raised the following contentions, namely, (1) that there was no necessity for the preparation of a separate electoral roll inasmuch as the amended Section 8 (2) (c) itself provides that all the members of the Swetambar Jain community residing in the State of Bihar. whose names are included as voters in the Legislative Assembly constituencies would elect five members of the Board; (2) that no condition can be imposed which would affect the right which has been given to the members of the Swetamber Jain Community residing in the State of Bihar under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act; (3) that rule 4 (2) (c) of the Rules has been declared to be ultra vires in the case of P.K. Shah v. Special Officer, (1971 BLJR 24) and no fresh rule for the preparation of electoral roll was made; (4) that the election of Sri Navratan Mult Surana (respondent No. 9) is invalid as he is not a resident of the State of Bihar and is not a votor in any of the assembly constituencies of the State of Bihar; and (5) that the nomination of Shri Gambhir Chand Bothra and Shri Shiva Chand Jhabak (respondents 3 and 4 respectively) under Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act is not valid as they are not residents of the State of Bihar and are not voters in any of the Assembly constituencies in the State of Bihar.
8. Before dealing with the contentions which have been raised by Mr. Mishra, I would like to state that out of the respondents, respondents 3 & 4 are the members of the Board having been appointed by the State Government under Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act; respondents 5 to 8 are the four persons who have been elected under Section 8 (2) (b) of the Act and respondents 9 to 13 are the persons who have been elected under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act. Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh No. 1 has appeared in the writ application on behalf of respondents 3, 5, 6 and 8 to 13. Mr. Bishwanath Agrawal has appeared for respondent No. 7 as also for Shri B. C. Jain, Superintendent-cum-Special Officer of the Board (respondent No. 2). It appears that notice of the writ application on respondent No. 4 was not served and when the matter was placed before the Bench on the 15th of March, 1973, a prayer was made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the main application may be heard even if notice was not served on respondent No. 4 as he was not a necessary party. Accordingly a date was fixed and the writ application was heard on the 6th and 9th of April, 1973. At the time of hearing no one appeared for respondent No. 4.
9. For the sake of convenience, I will deal with the first and second contentions together. The amended Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act, which I have quoted in extenso, provides three things, namely, (1) that the electors of five members of the Board would be only those Swetambar Jains who are residing in the State of Bihar, (2) that the electors will be only those members of Swetambar Jain Community who are enrolled as voters in the existing voters’ list or any of the Assembly constituencies in the State of Bihar, and (3) that the five members of the Board would be elected in the prescribed manner. Rule 4 of the Rules, which I have reproduced earlier, provides for the method of voting, preparation of electoral rolls etc. Rule 4 (2) (c) is the relevant rule under which provisions for the preparation of electoral roll in respect of the election of members under Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Act have been made. Mr. Mishra made two fold submissions. In the first place, he urged that there is no necessity to prepare an electoral roll separately in respect of the election of the five members of the Board under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act because the amended Section 8 (2) (c) itself provides as to who will be the voters. Secondly he submitted that Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act or any other provision of the Act does not confer power on the rale making authority to make rules for the preparation of an electoral roll.
10. The submission of Mr. Mishra that there is no necessity to prepare a separate electoral roll because the amended Section 8 (2) (c) itself provides as to who will be the voters is not sound. Clause (c) of Section 8 (2) of the Act only provides as to who would be eligible to be voters for the election of five members of the Board. Without taking steps for the preparation of a separate electoral roll, it is impossible to find out from the voters’ list of the assembly constituencies of the entire State of Bihar the names of persons belonging to the Swetambar Jain Community. If no separate electoral roll is prepared, it will be difficult to hold an election. Even at the last moment one may turn up and say that he is an eligible voter as he belongs to the Swetambar Jain Community and his name is included in the voters’ list of a particular Assembly constituency. The preparation of a separate list of voters for election of the members of the Board under Clause (c) of Section 8 (2) of the Act is, therefore, absolutely essential.
11. The only point, therefore, which falls for consideration is whether the power has been conferred under the provisions of the Act upon the State Government to make rules for the preparation of an electoral roll. As provided under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act, the five members of the Board are to be elected in the prescribed manner. The word ‘prescribed’, as defined in Clause (h) of Section 2, means “prescribed by rules made by the State Government under this Act.” Section 82 (2) (b) of the Act authorises the State Government to make rules with respect to the manner in which members shall be elected under (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 and under Section 10. In the case of AIR 1969 Pat 209 a Bench of this Court held that the State Government had no power to make a rule that in the electoral roll all residents of Bihar professing Swetamber Jain faith and above 21 years of age would be entitled to be included as electors while on the other hand, only those out of a large body of Swetambar Jain residing outside Bihar would be eligible to be entered as electors who had contributed Rs. 500/- either to the trust or to the Board within the last ten years. In that case it was not held that the State Government had no power to make rule for the preparation of electoral roll. The words “elected in the prescribed manner” occurring in Section 8 (2) (c) read with Section 82 (2) (b) of the Act, in my opinion, confer power on the rule making authority, namely. the State Government, to prescribe a rule for the preparation of an electoral roll of the eligible voters whose qualification has already been prescribed in Section 8 (2) (c) itself. Needless to add that the preparation of an electoral roll is a necessary step in the process of election. Thus, there is no substance in the submission made by Mr. Mishra that Section 8 (2) (c) or any other provision of the Act does not authorise the State Government to make rules for the preparation of an electoral roll.
12. Rule 4 (2) (c) of the Rules does not prescribe as to who shall be the voters, It only prescribes that applications shall be invited and received by the president for enrolment of members in the electoral roll. Mr. Mishra is, therefore, not correct in his submission that Rule 4 (2) (c) imposes any condition affecting the right which has been given to the members of the Swetambar Jain Community residing in the State of Bihar under Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in the first two contentions which have been raised by Mr. Mishra.
13. Now I proceed to consider the third contention of Mr. Mishra that Rule 4 (2) (c) has been declared to be ultra vires in the case of P.K. Shah v. Special Officer, 1971 BLJR 24. The above contention of Mr. Mishra is based on the following passage in paragraph 6 of the judement of that case:
“The next question, however, is with regard to the uncertainty as to who could be deemed to be voters inasmuch as no age is prescribed in the Act so that even a minor or a child may be a voter. In Rule 4 (2) (c) of the Rules governing the Bihar Swetamber Jain Religious Trusts, no provision is made for the age at which a member of the Shrce Sangh will be entitled to exercise his franchise. This appears to be a serious lacuna resulting in confusion and on this account, at any rate, therefore, Clause (c) will have to be declared to be invalid. In this view of the matter, no other question need be considered on merit as to whether the notification issued can be held to be legal and adeauate.”
One may form the impression from the passage quoted above that Rule 4 (2) (c) was declared to be invalid. It is, however, clear from what bas been stated in paragraph 7 of the judgment that only Clause (c) of Section 8 (2) of the Act was declared to be invalid and not Rule 4 (2) (c) of the Rules. The case of R.B. Mehta v. State. AIR 1971 Pat 401 was beard by the same Bench and in that case also Section 8 (2) (c) of the Act was declared to be invalid as it did not specify any ape limit of a member of the Shree Sangb in order to be qualified to be a voter. Mr. Mishra is. therefore, not right in his contention that Rule 4 (2) (c) of the Rules has been declared invalid in any of the cases referred to above.
14. Now remains to consider the contention of Mr. Mishra regarding the election of Shri Navratan Mull Surana (respondent No. 9). In paragraph 31 of the writ application it has been stated that Shri Navratan Mull Surana is a resident of Calcutta (West Bengal) and not of Barakat, district Giridih and he is not a voter in any of the constituencies of Bihar. The statement made in paragraph 31 of the writ application has been controverted in paragraph 23 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 9 and some other respondents. It has been stated in para. 23 that Sri Navratan Mull Surana (respondent No. 9) is a resident of Barakar, district Giridih and he is a voter in the Assembly constituency of Bihar. In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it has been asserted that Sri Navratan Mull Surana is a resident of Barakar in the district of Giridih, has his house there and he is leading a retired life. In the rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2 it has been asserted that Sri Navratan Mull Surana is a resident of Calcutta in West Bengal and his name is not included in the voters’ list of any of the Assembly constituencies of the State of Bihar. Thus the questions whether Sri Navratan Mull Surana (respondent No. 9) is a resident of Bihar or not and whether his name is included in the voters’ list of any of the Assembly constituencies of Bihar are controversial questions of fact and those questions cannot be decided in a writ application. The proper course for the petitioners was to file an election petition against respondent No. 9 under Rule 5 (1) of the Rules.
15. Now remains to consider the last contention of Mr. Mishra. In paragraph 33 of the writ application it has been stated that Sri Gambhir Chand Bothra is a resident of Calcutta (West Bengal) and Shri Shiva Chand Jhabak is a resident of Bikaner (Rajasthan). It is also stated that none of them are voters in any of the Assembly constituencies in the State of Bihar. As I have already stated, these two members have been nominated as members of the Board under Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 it has beea stated that Sri Shiv Chand Jhabak (respondent No.4) is a permanent resident of Patna City doing his business there and he frequently visits Bikaner. Nothing has been said in the counter-affidavit about respondent No. 3. Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act provides that two of the members shall be persons appointed by the State Government. There is nothing in Section 8 (2) (a) of the Act to limit the choice from amongst the members of the Swetambar Jain community who are residents of Bihar and are enrolled as voters in the assembly constituencies of the State of Bihar. Even if the statement made by the petitioners in paragraph 33 of the writ application be accepted as correct that respondents 3 and 4 are not residents of Bihar and are not voters in any of the Assembly constituencies of the State of Bihar, it cannot be held that their nomination by the State Government is illegal.
16. Mr. Mishra did not advance any argument with regard to the validity of the election of respondents 5 to 8. In course of his submission, Mr. Nagendra Prasad Singh No. 1 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this application. It is not necessary to consider the objection as I have given my decision on all the points which were raised on behalf of the petitioners. I may state here that the fact that petitioners I. 2 and 3 and their proposers and seconders did not get themselves enrolled as voters in response to the notices (Annexures 1, 2 and 3) is not disputed. As provided under Rule 5 (d) (ii). any person whose name is registered in the electoral roll of the constituency can only subscribe as proposer or seconder of a nomination paper. As the nomination papers of petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were in contravention of Rule 5 (d) fii) they were rejected. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the nomination papers of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were rejected on the ground that the names of their proposers and seconders were not registered in the electoral roll as required by Rule 5 fd) (ii) of the Rules. The nomination paper of petitioner No. 1 was rejected on two grounds, namely, on the ground of non-compliance of Rule 5 (d) fii) as also on the ground that he was disqualified under Section 80 f2) of the Act. No argument was advanced by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of the above allegations made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit.
17. In paragraph 23 of the writ application certain allegations have been made against Sri B. C. Jain, Superintendent of the Board (respondent No. 2). In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 those allegations have been denied. Mr. Mishra at the time of the hearing of the writ application did not press those allegations against respondent No. 2.
18. In paragraph 29 of the writ application it has been stated that only 239 persons were included in the list of voters although 400 Swetamber Jains are voters in the Patna East and Patna West Assembly constituencies and in all there are more than 40,000 Swetambar Jain voters in the various Assembly constituencies of Bihar. The fact that there are 10,000 Swetambar Jain voters in the Assembly constituencies of the State of Bihar and their names are not included in the voters’ list does not make any difference in the legal position. If these persons did not file applications for their inclusion in the voters’ list in response to the notices (Annexures 1, 2 and 3) they are themselves to blame.
19. For the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed’ In the circumstances of the case, I would make no order as regards costs.
S.P. Sinha, J.
20. I agree