Back
Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Okram Kullo Singh
Versus
Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India
Civil Writ Appln. Case No. 8 of 1967
Decided On : 05-04-1968
ELECTION LAW - Electoral roll - Preparation - Publication - Non-compliance with rules - Effect - Election not vitiated - Substantial compliance with rules sufficient - Right to vote - Statutory right - Duty of electors to make enquiry - Alternative remedy under Act and Rules - Existence of - Bar to writ petition - Article 329(b) of the Constitution - Election to State Legislature - Attack on proceedings before nomination papers filed - Maintainability of writ petition - Election petition - Proper remedy.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, residents of Sagolband Constituency, Imphal West, filed a writ petition challenging the electoral roll prepared for the Assembly Constituency and the election of respondents 6 and 7 based on the impugned electoral roll. They alleged that the electoral roll was invalid as enumerators were appointed before they were duly appointed by the Election Commission of India and that no letters of request were sent to the petitioners or any elector in the Sagolband Constituency. They also alleged that the draft electoral roll was not published in the manner prescribed by the rules and that they were not afforded any opportunity to submit objections to the draft electoral roll. The respondents contended that the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Act 43 of 1950) and the Rules of 1960, that the presence of mistakes in the electoral roll was no ground for setting aside the election of respondents 6 and 7, and that a joint writ petition by the petitioners was not maintainable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appointment of the District Election Officer, Manipur, was not invalid as the Election Commission of India had designated him as the Electoral Registration Officer for all the Assembly Constituencies in the Union Territory of Manipur in 1963. The Court also held that the non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1960, which required the sending of letters of request to the occupants of dwelling houses in the constituency, was not mandatory and that substantial compliance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1960, which required the publication of the draft electoral roll, was sufficient. The Court further held that the petitioners had alternative remedies under the Act of 1950 and the Rules of 1960, and that the existence of such remedies barred the writ petition. The Court also held that Article 329(b) of the Constitution barred the writ petition as the petitioners were attacking the proceedings which took place before the nomination papers were filed and that the proper remedy was to file an election petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the appointment of the District Election Officer, Manipur, was invalid? 2. Whether the non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1960, which required the sending of letters of request to the occupants of dwelling houses in the constituency, was mandatory? 3. Whether substantial compliance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1960, which required the publication of the draft electoral roll, was sufficient? 4. Whether the petitioners had alternative remedies under the Act of 1950 and the Rules of 1960? 5. Whether the existence of such remedies barred the writ petition? 6. Whether Article 329(b) of the Constitution barred the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The appointment of the District Election Officer, Manipur, was not invalid as the Election Commission of India had designated him as the Electoral Registration Officer for all the Assembly Constituencies in the Union Territory of Manipur in 1963. 2. The non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Rules of 1960, which required the sending of letters of request to the occupants of dwelling houses in the constituency, was not mandatory. 3. Substantial compliance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1960, which required the publication of the draft electoral roll, was sufficient. 4. The petitioners had alternative remedies under the Act of 1950 and the Rules of 1960. 5. The existence of such remedies barred the writ petition. 6. Article 329(b) of the Constitution barred the writ petition as the petitioners were attacking the proceedings which took place before the nomination papers were filed and that the proper remedy was to file an election petition.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by 15 residents of Sagolband Constituency in Imphal West which is one of the Assembly Constituencies of the Union Territory of Manipur against (1) the Election Commission of India, (2) the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, (3) the Electoral Registration Officer, Sagolband, Assembly Constituency No. 8, Manipur, (4) the Returning officer of the same constituency, (5) Shri B.K. Ganguly, "District Election Officer, Manipur", (6) Shri Salam Gambhir Singh, (7) Shri Moirangthem Meghachandra Singh, and (8) the Government of Manipur (Respondents 1 to 8). for a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ appropriate to the circumstances of the case to quash the electoral roll of Sagolband Constituency and also to quash the election of the respondents 6 and 7 based on the impugned electoral roll and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 and 8 either to prepare a fresh electoral roll or to revise the same.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners, who are citizens of India and residents of Sagolband Constituency, Imphal West, which is one of the Assembly Constituencies No. S, of the Union Territory of Manipur were electors, is. firstly, that they cast their votes in the last General Election held in 1962, that they also cast their votes in the last Gram Panchayat Election held in 1964, that for preparation and intensive revision of the electoral roll under Part II of the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1960), the respondents 4 and 5 appointed some enumerators under their orders even before they were duly appointed by the first respondent (Election Commission of India) and began to act and that, therefore, the electoral roll so prepared by the enumerators is invalid. Secondly, the petitioners, allege that during the preparation of the electoral roll no letter of request in form No. 4 prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules of 1960 was sent to the petitioners or to any elector in the Sagolband Constituency, that the offices of the respondents 3 and 5 were not within the said Constituency, that they failed to publish the draft electoral roll in the manner prescribed by Rule 10(b) and sub-rr. (a) and (b) of Rule 11 of the Rules of I960, that thus the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to submit objections to the draft electoral roll, that a number of dead persons and a number of persons, who were not actually living in the Constituency, were included in the draft roll and that, it is liable to be quashed.
Thirdly, the petitioners allege in their petition that the first petitioner learnt on 13-10-1966 that his name was not mentioned in the draft electoral roll, that the first respondent (Election Commission of India) extended the date upto 15-10-1966 for sub mission of objections, that on 14-10-1966 he submitted claim in form No. 6 for inclusion of his name but that no list in duplicate in the prescribed form of the claims was maintained by the 3rd respondent or by am other officers, that on 1-10-1967 the first petitioner learnt that his name was not included in the electoral roll that thereafter he purchased the prescribed Form by applying to the 3rd respondent on payment of fifty paise and approached the third respondent on 11-1-1967 at about 2-30 P.M. and requested him to permit the first respondent to submit the application, but that the third respondent refused to take it, that the final list of electoral roll was published on 16-11-1966, that the election for the Assembly Constituency and the Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency was held on 15-2-1967, that then the petitioners learnt that their names were not found in the list of voters and that the respondents 6 and 7 were declared elected for the Sagolband. Assembly Constituency and the Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency respectively by the voters on the electoral roll prepared. Thus, the fundamental rights of the petitioners to cast their
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
