JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, J.

We have heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur for the respondent/State Election Authority. The respondent No. 12, a candidate in the elections, is represented by Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam.

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the decision of the Returning Officer based on the communication made by the Advisor to the State Election Authority, whereby the names of the petitioners and 76 others have been deleted from the voter-list.

3. The urgency for the petitioners to approach this Court is that elections have been announced, which is to be held on 13th of February, 2023.

4. It is the contention of the petitioners that their names were not included in the draft voterlist, to which they had objected and on their furnishing proof, they were included in the final voterlist, which was published on 09.01.2023.

5. It has further been informed to us that barely a day after the final voter-list was published, a complaint was received in the office of the State Election Authority by the private respondent No. 12 and others that without any rational basis, the Returning Officer has included the names of the petitioners in the final voter-list. Pursuant to such complaint, the Returning Officer was asked to explain and submit a report, which he did. The District Cooperative Officer also was asked to inquire into the matter and report to the State Election Authority.

6. However, without awaiting the result of such enquiry, the elections schedule was announced by the State Election Authority on 11.01.2023 only.

7. On the basis of the enquiry report by the District Co-operative Officer and the Returning Officer, the State Election Authority has now taken a decision, behind the back of the petitioners and 76 others, that their inclusion in the voter-list is not sustainable and therefore their names be deleted.

8. The primary objection of the petitioners is that they ought to have been given notice before any decision was taken to exclude their names from the final voter-list. The other objection is that when such complaint was entertained, the State Election Authority ought to have awaited the report of the enquiry which was ordered by it before announcing the date of the elections.

9. The petitioners lament that they have been left with a very small window to operate and have the order rectified. The petitioners, therefore, smell rat that the whole decision making process is collusive.

10. On the contrary, Mr. Mangalam has expostulated that there is nothing in the records which would justify the inclusion of the petitioners in final voter-list. No sooner, the private respondent and many others, some of whom had thrown their hat in the ring, made complaint before the State Election Authority, which was promptly responded to. Only when it was found that the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the final voter-list was not sustainable, that such a decision was taken, which cannot be faulted with and the elections be permitted to be held as scheduled.

11. The learned counsel appearing for the State Election Authority has submitted that in view of the complaints against the petitioners and 76 others of their wrongly having been included in the voter-list by the Returning Officer, necessary enquiry was made and the complaint was found to be genuine.

12. The election dates, no doubt, were announced earlier, but that was on the requisition of the District Co-operative Officer as vacancy had arisen in the concerned Vyapar Mandal and without elections, the Vyapar Mandal would not have functioned properly.

13. What has caught our attention is that when a final voter-list was prepared, whereafter the elections were announced, it was not appropriate for the State Election Authority to have directed for deletion of the names of the petitioners and 76 others without giving them an opportunity of presenting their cause, notwithstanding any complaint against their