The electoral roll is final and conclusive and the correctness of the electoral roll could not be gone into in an election petition. The finality attached to the electoral roll can be eroded or denuded in the event of constitutional inhibition envisaged under Art 326 of the constitution.

( 1 ) THIS petition is for the issue of writ of Certiorari calling for the records in 0. P. No. 55 of 1981 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Markapur, Prakasam district and quash the order passed therein.

( 2 ) THE essential averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition may be stated : The petitioner and the first respondent filed nominations for 13th block poll for the Municipal Council, markapur and the election was held on 9-8-1981. The petitioner was declared as elected with a majority of 18 votes. The voters list of the Assembly constituency was adopted for the purpose of election to the Municipal council. The voters list was published far in advance before the election was held. The 1st respondent filed 0. P. 55 of 1981 before the Court of the subordinate Judge, Markapur questioning the validity of the election The Subordinate judge passed an order for recounting of votes after deleting four votes stated to be double voting and the votes of persons under 18 years

( 3 ) THE voters list of the Assembly constituency, in so far as it relates to the markapur Municipality was adopted under sec. 11 of the A. P. Municipalities Act. In the election held for 13th block of Markapur municipality on 9-8-1981, the votes were counted on 10 8-1981 and the petitioner polled 596 votes and the 1st respondent polled 578 valid votes and the petitioner was declared elected with a majority of 18 votes. After considering the evidence the Court below held that there have been instances of double voting and unjust invalidation of votes and exercise of franchise by persons under 18 years of age and these materially affected the election and the result and in this view ordered recount of votes deleting the double votes and the votes of persons under 18 years.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold contention viz. that the electoral roll is final and conclusive and the correctness of the electoral roll could not be gone into in an election petition and the electoral roll can be corrected only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the rules and t serefore the deletion of votes of persons entered in the electoral roll is not warranted and even if the alleged four double votes were deemed to be cast in favour of the petitioner and deleted the petitioner would still have the majority of the votes and further the first respondent did not allege in the election petition with regard to the casting of votes by the persons under 18 years on the notified date, and as such the election tribunal should not have considered this aspect.

( 5 ) IN Neipendra Bahadur Singh V. Jai Ram Verma (1) AIR 1977 SC 1992 the election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative council from the local authorities constituency was questioned on the ground that certain voters recorded therein were disqualified on the date of election though their names appear in the electoral roll. In the election petition the High Court held that the electoral registration officer has to maintain the electoral roll corrected uptodate and that since this had not been done the names of the voters who admittedly ceased to be presidents or coopted members some time in 1973 ought not to have appeared in the electoral rolls and they were disqualified from voting in the election. In the context of considering the finality of the electoral roll the supreme Court held as follows :-"it is not disputed that the persons whose names were recorded in the electoral roll and participated in the voting were not disqualified under section 16 of the 1950 Act. That being the position it would have been wrong on the part of the Presiding Officer not to allow the voters whose names were recorded in the electoral roll of the constituency though their names could have been earlier at the appropriate time legitimately excluded from the electoral roll. These voters are electors within the meaning of Sec. 2 (1) (e) of the 1951 Act and were entitled to vote under Sec. 62 of