1997 Supreme(Bom) 670

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
A.D. Mane B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Yeshwantrao Kankarrao Gadakh ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra others .... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 5205 of 1997, decided on 9-12-1997.
Advocates appeared :
K.G. Navander and S.B. Deshmukh, for the petitioner.
A.B. Gaikwad, A.G.P., for respondents No. 1, 2 and 4.
N.H. Patil, for the respondent No. 3.

Headnote:Representation of Peoples Act, 1951

       Sections 8-A(1) and (3), 11-A, 16 and 99-Voter list-Restoration of name-Disqualified for 4 years Seeking restoration of name to voter list immediately after period of disqualification ended-Elected officer stated that it could be done in next years list-Right to vote in local bodies election deprived-Held-In view of Section 16(2) the name of a disqualified person shall be reinstated forthwith in the electoral roll, on expiry of disqualification period. To the present case, as the period of disqualification of petitioner Wd." expiring on 18.11.1997, the petitioner approached the District Electoral Registration Officer, the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and the Chief Electoral Officer, and the State Election Commission, Mumbai, by his representation, dated 19.9.1997 and requested them that immediately on expiry of his disqualification period of four years on 18.11.1997, his name should be reinstated in the electoral roll. As no action was taken by the respondents and the petitioner was seeking to contest the ensuing elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Council from the local bodies constituency to be held on 29.12.1997 and as the last date for filing nomination form is fixed on 11.12.1997, the petitioner approached this Court for necessary directions to the respondents so as to reinstate his name in the electoral roll of the said constituency, as was in force on that date. The case made out by the respondents is, that though there is no dispute that the name of the petitioner is required to be reinstated in the electoral roll his name has been included in the provisional voters list to be finalised and defective from 1.1.1998. The dispute for decision, therefore, falls in a narrow compass as to whether the name of the petitioner is to be reinstated in the electoral roll of the said constituency as is in force on 19.11.1997 or in the provisional voters list to be finalised and effective from 1.1.1998, as is done in the present case by the respondents. It is well settled position in law that the provisions of a statute should be construed literally and should be given their natural and ordinary meaning_ It is also well recognised that where the language is plain and admits of one thing, the task of interpretation can hardly be said to arise. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the 1950 Act is divided in two parts. The first part provides that the name of any such person who is disqualified shall forthwith be struck off the electoral roll. Whereas, the second part which is in terms of a proviso, stares that the name of such it disqualified person shall be reinstated forthwith in that electoral roll, on expiry of the disqualification period. No doubt, the difficulties some times arise in construing a proviso, but, it is generally found that inconsistencies can be avoided by applying the general rule that the words of proviso are not to be taken absolutely in their strict literal sense but, that a proviso as of a necessity is limited in its operation to the ambit of section which it qualifies. If, however, the language of the proviso makes it clear that it was intended to have operation more extensive than that of the provision which it immediately follows it must be given such wider. The instructions on which the learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance are, applicable to a first time voter or a voter whose name is missing from the voters list for any other reason than an order of disqualification in a particular electoral roll and the said guidelines do not come to the rescue of the respondent authorities in support of their contention that their action to include the name of the petitioner in the electoral roll effective from -1.1.1998 is legal and proper. If, the contentions of the authorities are accepted, the provisions of Section 11-A(2) of the 1951 Act will be rendered redundant and by implication it shall mean that the period of disqualification is extended beyond the period of four years i.e., upto 31.12.1997. Petitioners right as a voter was taken away by an order passed under Section R-A of the Act and the same must be restored as soon as the period of qualification came to an end i.e., on 19.11.1997. In reply to the representations made by the petitioner on 19.9.1997 as well as on 24.11.1997, it is, nowhere, contended by the respondents authorities that the petitioner will be required to wait till 31.12.1997 and his representations could not be considered till a fresh electoral roll is published on 1.1.1998. To suggest that the petitioner must wait till the new voters list is published for his name being included, is far-fetched and may defeat the very purpose behind Section 16(2) of the Act.