JUDGMENT

ORDER :— Transferred Writ Petitions Nos. 365 to 382 of 1984 challenge the validity of the elections to the Assam Legislative Assembly held in February 1983. The principal ground on which the validity of the elections has been challenged is that the electoral rolls were not revised before the elections in contravention of the provisions of S. 21 sub-sec. (2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1950 and the elections were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. Now it is undoubtedly true that the electoral rolls were not revised before the impugned elections were held but the Election Commission dispensed with the revision of the electoral rolls by an order dated 7th January, 1983 made under the opening part of S. 21 sub-sec. (2) and this order has not been challenged in any of the Writ Petitions. Hence the impugned elections cannot be challenged on the ground that they were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979 without revision of the electoral rolls. The petitioners also attacked the validity of the electoral rolls of 1979 on the ground that the Election Commission had, by the Press Note dated 18th September, 1979, erroneously directed the electoral authorities in charge of revision of the electoral rolls not to delete the names of any persons from the electoral rolls on the ground of lack of qualification of citizenship, since the question of citizenship was not one which could be decided by the electoral authorities and the electoral rolls of 1979 were therefore invalid and the impugned elections held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979 were void. We do not think there is any substance in this contention.

2. In the first place, Art. 329(b) of the Constitution bars any challenge to the impugned elections by a writ petition under Art. 226 as also on the ground that the electoral rolls on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid. The petitioners sought to escape from the ban of Art. 329(b) by contending that they Are. challenging the impugned elections as a whole and riot any individual election and that the ban of Art. 329(b) therefore does not stand in the way of the writ petitions filed by them challenging the impugned elections. But, we do not think this escape route is open to the petitioners. There is in the Representation of the People Act, 1951 no concept of elections as a whole. What that Act contemplates is election from each constitutency and it is that election which is liable to be challenged by filing an election petition. It may be that there is a common ground which may vitiate the elections from all the constituencies, but even so it is the election from each constituency which has to be challenged though the ground of challenge may be identical. Even where in form the challenge is to the elections as a whole, in effect and substance what is challenged is election from each constituency and Art. 329(b) must therefore be held to be attracted.

3. We are of the view that once the, final electoral rolls are published and elections are held on the basis of such electoral rolls, it is not open to any one to challenge the election from any constituency or constituencies on the ground that the electoral rolls were defective. That is not a ground available for challenging an election under S.100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The finality of the electoral rolls cannot be assailed in a proceeding challenging the validity of an election held on the basis of such electoral rolls vide Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, (1970) 1 SCR 845 . Article 329(b) in our opinion clearly bars any writ petition challenging the impugned elections on the ground that the electoral rolls of 1979 on the basis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid.

4. We may also point out that in our opinion the electoral rolls of 1979 cannot be condemned as invalid. The counter-affidavits of Shri Ganesan, Secretary to the Election Commission and Shri Ashok Kumar Aror