SHAH, J.: -These four writ petitions relate to the election of Panaji Municipal Council. They involve a common question. They have been heard together and shall be disposed of by this common judgment.

2. On December 20, 1995, the State Election Commissioner of Goa issued an order under Section 11 of the Goa Municipalities Act (for short "the Act") and notified thereby that the electoral roll of the Goa Legislative Assembly prepared under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and for the time being in force, as on that day, of December 20, 1995, for such constituency of the Assembly or any part thereof as is included in the municipal area, shall be divided and authenticated by Mamlatdar of Tiswadi taluka in which Panaji Municipal Council is situated into different sections corresponding to the different wards in the municipal area as fixed under Section 10 of the Act.

The State Election Commissioner on December 29, 1995 published the calendar of events of the election programme under which the last date for filing the nominations for the election was fixed as February 3, 1996.Under that calendar of events, the date for taking the poll was fixed as February 25, 1996.

3. There are two petitioners in Writ Petition No. 26 of 1996. On January 17, 1996, they approached the Electoral Registration Officer, Panaji at Goa with a request in the prescribed form for inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls as their names did not appear in the electoral rolls, though their names were there in the earlier electoral rolls prepared in the year 1993. As the request did not meet any positive result, the petitioners of petition No. 26 preferred an appeal under Section24 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short "1950 Act ") to the Chief Electoral Officer. On January 25, 1996, the Chief Electoral Officer allowed the petitioners' appeal and directed the inclusion of their names in the list of supplement of 1996 for Panji Assembly Constituency as per subsection(3) of Section23 of the 1950 Act. Consequent thereupon, the petitioners approached the Returning Officer i.e. Mamlatdar of Tiswadi for inclusion of their names in the voters lists in the relevant ward. However, the Returning Officer stated that it was not possible to include the petitioners' name in the voters lists.

4. According to the petitioners' petition No. 26 of 1996, they wanted to contest and vote at the ensuing election as they have a right to contest and vote, and on account of the illegal approach of the authority, even in face of their success in getting their names in the electoral roll included, their names are not included in the voters list. It is, therefore, that they have filed the present petition No. 26 of 1996, firstly, for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to include their names in the municipal voters list for the Panaji Municipal Council Elections to be held on February 25, 1996, and on the basis thereof, to permit the petitioners to contest/ vote. at the said election.

In the petition, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 11 of the Act on the ground that it does not provide any corrective machinery in the voters list. They have also prayed for a mandamus directing and commanding the State Election Commissioner to withdraw the notification dated December 20, 1995 or in the alternative an order striking down that notification.

5. In writ petition No. 27 of 1996, there are five petitioners. Their names are not included in the voters list. Their case is that their names were included in the earlier electoral rolls which were prepared in the year 1993 and in the subsequent electoral rolls, their names have been omitted. That is their first contention. Secondly, according to them, as many as about 500 persons, whose names and particulars they have given, were also the voters at the ear