JUDGEMENT

SHARMA, J.- This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the decision of the Karnataka High Court setting aside the election of the appellant D.B. Raju to the State Legislative Council, and directing the recount of the votes after excluding those of 242 nominated members. The election was held by adopting the single transferable vote method. The polling took place on July 3, 1988 and the counting was taken up on the next date, that is, July 4, 1988. After several rounds of counting the appellant was declared as the successful candidate.

2. The election in question relates to the Chitradurga Local Authorities Constituency, comprising 121 Mandal Panchayats. The last date and time fixed for receiving nomination papers was 3.00 p.m. on June 3, 1988. According to the appellants case, a decision was taken by the Chitradurga Zilla Parishad in its special meeting held on May 28, 1988 to nominate two members from each Mandal Panchayat, that is, a total number of 242 members. Accordingly, steps were taken under the provisions of the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Parishads Act) read with the rules framed thereunder, and 242 members were duly nominated in time to be included in the electoral roll. This has been denied by the election petitioner-respondent 1, as also some of the respondents who contested the election. According to their case, the inclusion of the names of the nominated members in the electoral roll took place after the period for nomination was over and they were, therefore, not included in the electoral roll in the eye of law. The main question in the case which thus arises is as to whether the names of the 242 nominated members were included in the electoral roll within the time permitted by the law.

3. The Deputy Commissioner, who was impleaded in the election petition as respondent 5 (in this appeal also he is respondent 5), had triple role to play in connection with the disputed election. He was authorised under the Parishads Act and the Karnataka Zilla Parishads, Taluk Panchayat Samithis, Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Parishads Rules) to take steps for completing the nomination of the members; under Section 13-B of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, he was the Electoral Registration Officer for preparation and revision of the electoral roll; and he was also the Returning Officer under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. According to the case of the appellant, a resolution was passed by the Zilla Parishad on May 28, 1988 nominating the aforementioned 242 members, and the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad sent the list of the names to the Deputy Commissioner on May 30, 1988. The Deputy Commissioner was, under Section 5(9) of the Parishads Act, required to publish the said names so as to complete the process of nomination. He was also vested with the jurisdiction to include the names in the electoral roll under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It is relevant to note at this stage that the question of inclusion of the names in the electoral roll could arise only after the nomination was complete in the eye of law. A nominated person was entitled to be included as a voter for the election to the Council Constituency after he became a member of the Mandal Panchayat and not before. Having learnt about the nominations on the eve of the election, some persons challenged the same and objected before the Deputy Commissioner to the proposed publication. However, the Deputy Commissioner on June 1, 1988 passed an order directing the necessary steps to be taken under the Parishads Act, and accordingly a list of the nominated members was pasted on the notice board of the office of the Deputy Commissioner. Before the nominated persons could be treat