V.N. SINHA, J.:–By filing the present Election Petition, election petitioner has challenged the election of sole respondent as member of Bihar Legislative Council from 02-Gaya Graduate Constituency held on 10.04.2011 as also prayed to declare the said election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) and sole respondent ought not to have been declared elected from the said constituency as he secured 16242 votes, less than 16550 votes, the quota fixed for being declared elected under Rule 75 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which would appear from result-sheet dated 14.04.2011 (Annexure-1).

2. In support of the aforesaid plea election petitioner has relied on the provisions of Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “1950 Act”) and Rule 31 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and with reference to the aforesaid provisions, it is submitted that the existing electoral roll i.e. final electoral roll of 2004 election was published as draft electoral roll for the impugned election, 2010 calling upon the eligible voters not included in the draft electoral roll published for the impugned election to submit application in Form 18 by 11.11.2010 for being included as a voter in the electoral roll through public notice dated 01.10.2010 (Annexures- 3, 3/1) published in Dainik Jagran and Hindustan newspaper is wholly illegal as the notice (Annexures- 3, 3/1) has not called upon the elector to submit objection against any erroneous entry in the draft voter-list.

3. It has been specifically averred in paragraph 30 of the Election Petition that though claim for inclusion of name in the voter-list was entertained but objections were returned on the ground that notice does not call for any objection.

4. It has been further averred in paragraph 31 of the Election Petition that after the last date for filing of claim for inclusion of name in the electoral roll without receiving any objection against the new applicant for inclusion in the voter-list for the impugned election final voter-list for the impugned election was published indicating altogether 84,967 voters in the voter-list.

5. In paragraph 33 of the Election Petition petitioner has averred that having gone through the voter-list published for the impugned election it came to the notice of the petitioner and other candidates that there are many mistakes in the final voter-list, particularly in respect of name of some of the voters, parentage, same name appeared at more than one place in the voter-list. Highlighting the mistake(s) in the voter-list, representation(s) dated 15.02.2011, 25.10.2010, 29.10.2010, 14.02.2011 and 11.03.2011 (Annexure-4 series) were filed.

6. In paragraph 35 of the Election Petition it has been further averred that after receipt of objection the Electoral Registration Officer though noticed mistake in the electoral roll of all the eight districts constituting 02-Gaya Graduate Constituency but the Electoral Registration Officer directed for removal of name included twice only from the voter-list of Rohtas district where majority of the voters were supporters of the election-petitioner.

7. In paragraph 36 of the Election Petition it has been further averred that in Rohtas district name of 2947 voters was entered twice, which was directed to be removed from the voter-list. After removal of 2947 voters from the voter-list of 02-Gaya Graduate Constituency the total number of voters in the voter-list became 82600, which according to the election-petitioner was not correct as after removal of 2947 voters the figure should have been 82020 but in the voter-list total voters have been shown as 82600.

8. In paragraph 37 of the Election Petition petitioner has further averred that in all the districts constituting 02-Gaya Graduate Constituency the number of voters whose name was mentioned twice in the voter-list was in fact 4252, which if deduct