The main legal point established is that executive instructions cannot override statutory rules, and compliance with statutory provisions is essential for the validity of administrative actions.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27. 04. 2005 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the names of the petitioners as well as their two sons; and one daughter have been deleted from the provisional voter list: prepared for the purpose of forthcoming Panchayat Raj elections.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners, claim to be resident of village Bhanjanpur, Gram: Panchayat Payagpur Ramgarhwa, Block Manda, Tehsil Meja, District allahabad. There, they have a, house, immovable properties and their family members reside therein. Earlier names of the petitioners as well as their children existed in the voter list and they had exercised the right to vote in the last elections for the Parliaments well as the State assembly. Their names appeared in the voter list prepared for Gram Panchayat election also. The elector roll was published for the purposes of, holding the elections of Gram Panchayat on 01. 03. 2005. The name of petitioners as well as their children appeared in the voter list at Serial nos. 964 963, 964, 965 and 966. The election programme was notified by the Election commission, according to which a schedule was fixed for preparing the final electoral roll It provided that any objection, for inclusion or exclusion of the name of any person in the said provisional voter list would, be entertained from 1st March, 2005 to 15th March, 2005. objections, if any, were to be disposed of from 16th March, 2005 to 1st April, 2005. According to the petitioners, no objection had been filed for exclusion of their names from the provisional voter list during the said stipulated period Shri Surya Bali Bind, the respodent No. 5 impleaded by the Court on the application moved by him, filed objections for exclusion of the names of the petitioners and their three children on 13. 03. 2005 No notice had ever been served Upon any of the petitioners or their children opportunity of hearing had ever been given to them. When the petitioner No. 1 came to know that certain proceedings were pending for exclusion of his name, no. name he filed an affidavit on 23. 03. 2005 pointing out that the objection filed fair exclusion of their names was not based on correct; factual position. Subsequently, petitioners did not receive, any notice of any information. However, vide impugned order dated 27. 04. 2005, names of the petitioners and their three children have been excluded from the voter list. Hence, the present petition, ( 3 ) SHRI Radha Kant Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners has subrnittieel; that neither the statutory provisions provided under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act 1947) nor the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Registration of Electors) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the rules 1994) havej been followed. The respondent authority had no competence to entertain the application/objection for exclusion of names of the petitioners and their children after 1st April, 2005. No notice had ever been issued, to the petitioners or their children. Therefore, the order impugned is without jurisdiction and, is nullity.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Shri M. D. Singh Shekhar", learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, shri Surya Bali Bind has submitted that on 10th May; 2005, certain guidelines have been issued by the; State Election Commission by which the Authority concerned had the competence to entertain objections even after 01. 04. 2005. Petitioners had been served notices by U. P. C. (Under postal Certificate) and also by Dasti service, Notice was sent to the house of petitioner No. 1. His wife refused to accept the same, therefore, it was affixed at his house, Law does not provide for giving separate notices to, the voters if they are members of the same family whose names are to be deleted. No fault, can be found with the procedure adopted by the authority. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

( 5 ) VIDE order dated 19th