1989 Supreme(MP) 440

(Supreme Court)
M. H. Kania and Kuldip Singh, JJ.
B. Dandapani Patra v. Returning Officer.
C. A. No. 2542 of 1986; Decided on 8-11-1989.

Headnote:Representation of the People Act, 1951-S. 33 (5)-attested copy of final electoral roll not produce provision not complied with-nomination rightly rejected.

       yksd izfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951&/kkjk 33 ¼5½&fuo"kZpd ukekoyh dh vuqizekf.kr vafre izfr izLrqr ugha dh xbZ&mica/k dk vuqikyu ugha fd;k x;k&uke&funsZ‘ku Bhd [kkfjt fd;k x;kA

        This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 7 of 1985 filed by the appellant in that Court.

        Held: The election in question was to the Legislative Assembly of the Orissa State from 74-Gopalpur (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency.

        This election was held in March 1985. The last date for filing the nomination papers was February 8, 1985. The date of scrutiny was as February 9, 1985. The last date for withdraw of the nominations was February 11, 1985, February 10, 1985 being a Sunday. The appellant duly filed his nomination papers for the seat and along with the other papers, he filed an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll relating to 57 Sorada Assembly Constituency in which he was an elector. This was required because he was standing for election from a constituency other than the one in which he was elector. On an objection by one of the candidates, the said nomination paper was rejected for non-compliance with section 33 (5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The contention of the appellant is that he had produced before the Returning Officer an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll of the constituency in which he was an elector and hence, the rejection of his nomination paper on the ground of non-compliance with section 33 (5) of the said Act was wrong and bad in law.

        As we have already pointed out it is common ground that what the appellant produced before the Returning Officer was an attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll of the constituency in which he was an elector and that copy admittedly was dated July 13, 1983. There is a finding that the appellant had obtained the said copy on July 19, 1983 although he sought to contend that he had obtained it in July 19, 1984. The correctness of that finding bas rightly not been assailed before us. Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 1950 Act") provides for any constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of that Act under the directions and supervision of the Election Commission.

       It is the admitted position in the case before us that the electoral roll of the Orissa Legislative Assembly was directed to be revised and was, in fact, revised as on January 1, 1984 and the supplementary etectoral roll notifying the changes to be incorporated on the revision Was published and available before February 1985. Section 21 of the 1950 Act deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. Sub-section (I) of that section states that the electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its publication according to law. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of that section provides unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission the electoral roll shall be revised in the prescribed manner with reference to the qualifying date before each General Election to the House of the People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State. The provisions of rule 22 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules of 1960") read with the provisions of rules 15 to 21-A thereof show that when the electoral roll has to be revised the names of persons inadvertently omitted have to be included and the names of dead electors and of persons who ceased to be or are not ordinarily resident in the constituency have to be deleted from the electoral roll and so on. After this, the officer concerned prepares the list of amendments to be carried out to the electora1 roll. Provisions are also made for the correction of any clerical or printing errors in the earlier roll. After the completion of this task, either the entire revised electoral roll is to be prepared or the amendments in the existing electoral roll have to be made and incorporated in the electoral roll and published separately along with the original electoral roll. A complete electoral roll is made available for inspection and a notice to that effect is displayed in Form No. 16. Rule 22 (2) of the said Rules of] 960 lays that on such publication, the roll together with the list of amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency. Subd`rule (3) of rule 22 of the said Rules of 1960 shows that these amendments may be incorporated and an integrated roll may be published subject to any general or special directions issued by the Election Commission. It is clear on the reading of these provisions that the publication of the integrated roll is not essential for the revision of the electoral roll to be complete and the electoral roll with the amendments duly published becomes the final electoral roll for the constituency. In the present case, it is clear that what the appellant produced before the Returning Officer was not an attested copy of the final electoral roll for the said constituency for the election in question although the final roll was available. What he produced was an attested copy of the electoral roll as it stood on July 21, 1983 and the production of such attested copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll as it stood before the final revision cannot amount to compliance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 33 of the said Act. His nomination was, therefore, rightly rejected.(1966) 3 SCR 543 relied on. (1988) 3 Judgments Today 662 distinguished. Appeal dismissed.