1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the State and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Election Commission.

2. In this writ petition the petitioners seek writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the names of the petitioners in the voter list of Ward No. 10, Kanhauli Bishundutta Gram Panchayat, as according to the petitioners it existed on the day of nomination for the posts of Sarpanch and Member of the Panchayat Samiti in the General Elections of 2006 and in consequence thereof their respective candidature for different posts were accepted and also for restoring the previous position allowing the petitioners to contest the aforesaid elections.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, when the notification of Election of 2006 was published the petitioners name existed in the electoral roll, according to which they filed their nominations on the appointed date i.e. on 17.3.2006 which was accepted and thereafter symbol was also granted to the petitioners. He also avers that subsequently when the petitioners learnt that the authorities concerned were trying to strike off their names from the electoral roll illegally, they filed a representation before the Election Commission on 15.5.2006 but no step in that regard was taken and on the next day i.e. on 16.5.2006 the petitioners received a notice from the Block Development Officer to show as to why their names should not be struck off and accordingly the petitioners appeared before the said authority on 18.5.2006 and filed representation, where after their names were struck off from the electoral role on 21.5.2006, against which the petitioners filed representation before the Election Commission on 24.5.2006 and also filed the instant writ petition on the same date. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the names of the petitioners have been struck off and their candidatures have been cancelled only on the ground that their respective residences fall within the urban area but the said allegation was absolutely false as the petitioners area was declared as rural area in 1995 Gazette, where after no Gazette was published, nor any process has been adopted for declaring the said area as urban area and in any view of the matter the Block Development Officer was not competent to strike off their names from the electoral roll

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon a decision of this Court dated 05.9.2005 passed in CWJC No. 3612 of 2002 in which an interim order was passed but no final order has been passed in the said case. He also relies upon a Division Bench decision of the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh V/s. Nawal Kishore Yadav reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 46 in which reliance was placed on a decision of another Division Bench decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh V/s. Jai Ram Verma reported in - which followed the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Hari Prasad Mulshanker Trivedi V/s. V.B. Raju reported in - and held as follows:

The finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations. After that dead line the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification u/s. 16 of the 1950 Act. In the case in question the persons whose names were recorded in the electoral roll and participated in the voting were not disqualified u/s. 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 to participate in th