To qualify as an elector, a person must have resided in a lawful house recognized by the Cantonment Board, and the house must have been allocated a house number. The court emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of the term 'resided' and 'maintained a house' in the Act and Rules.

1. These two writ appeals take exception to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 22.04.2015 in W.P.No.93/2015.

2. That writ petition was filed by one Gopal Das Kabra (respondent No.1) seeking direction against the concerned Authorities to prepare voters list strictly in accord with Rule 10 of the Cantonments Electoral Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"), by removing the names of encroachers and residents of illegally constructed houses and which have not been allotted house number by the Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi. Consequential relief prayed, is that, the Authorities be restrained from conducting election to Ward of Members on the basis of the impugned voters list (Annexure-P/12).

3. The writ petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Pachmarhi area. He had contested election of Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi in the year 2008 and was defeated by a narrow margin of 292 votes. He had filed W.P.No.7169/2008 before this Court seeking similar direction against the concerned Authorities to strictly adhere to Rule 10 while preparing the electoral rolls of Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi. That writ petition was disposed of on 08.07.2010 with direction to the Cantonment Board, Pachmarhi to strictly abide by Rule 10 while preparing electoral rolls for 2010-11.

4. The appellants/Authorities had challenged that decision by way of W.A.No.798/2010. The Division Bench of this Court directed the Authorities to prepare the electoral rolls as per the mandate of Rule 10(3), to be arranged according to house numbers. The Division Bench rejected the argument of the Authorities that there are several encroachments on the land of Cantonment Board; for which proceedings have already been initiated, but the encroachers could not be evicted due to reasons beyond the control of the Board. It was argued on behalf of the appellants/Board that as it was not possible for the Board to prepare the electoral rolls of occupants of such unauthorized structures in absence of allotment of house numbers; and if house number was to be allotted, it would amount to regularizing the encroachment. The Division Bench, however, opined that there was no obligation on the Cantonment Board to allot house numbers in respect of the structures which are unauthorized or illegal. It went on to observe that substantial compliance of provisions of Rule 10(3) is possible by marking the encroachment as unauthorized construction. The Division Bench further observed that against the names of persons occupying unauthorized structures, that fact can be mentioned in the electoral rolls for the purpose of compliance of Rule 10(3) of the said Rules. However, by the subsequent order passed on 02.08.2013 in review petition filed by the writ-petitioner being R.P.No.972/2012, the Court deleted the observations made in the order dated 24.09.2010, - which read "and mention them accordingly in the electoral rolls for the purposes of compliance of Rule 10(3) of the Rules".

5. The writ petitioner then filed a contempt petition bearing No.742/2012, which was disposed of on 30.09.2013 with direction to the Authorities to take all necessary steps to comply with the decision of the Division Bench dated 24.09.2010 as modified on 02.08.2013, expeditiously. The writ petitioner then pursued the matter with the concerned Authorities and in the wake of fresh election to be held in or around December, 2014, apprehending that the Authorities may indulge in the same illegality in preparation of the electoral rolls, approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.93/2015, for the reliefs as mentioned hitherto.

6. It may be relevant to mention that, in the meantime pursuant to the directions given by the Court in PIL, the Authorities took action against the unauthorized structures and proceeded to demolish as many as around 1200 unauthorized structures in furtherance of the Court order (as noted in order dated 17.04.2015 in W.P.No.11909/2013 (PIL)). Even after re