1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 89
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Mangalmurti, Deo
MAHADEO NATHUJI AND ANR – Appellant
Versus
BISHAN LAGHUJI AND ORS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Petition No. 126 of 1952
Decided on : 31-07-1952
The electoral roll is conclusive on the point of the right of a voter to vote in any particular ward or constituency. Once published, it cannot be questioned. Any error in the roll must be corrected by the State Government under the proviso to Rule 7(1).
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - ELECTORAL ROLL - FINALITY - CITY OF NAGPUR CORPORATION ACT, 1948 (2 OF 1950), SEC. 10, 420(2), RULES 3, 6, 7(1), 10 - INTERPRETATION - ELECTORAL ROLL IS CONCLUSIVE ON THE POINT OF THE RIGHT OF A VOTER TO VOTE IN ANY PARTICULAR WARD OR CONSTITUENCY - ONCE PUBLISHED, IT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED - ANY ERROR IN THE ROLL MUST BE CORRECTED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER THE PROVISO TO RULE 7(1).
Fact of the Case:
The applicants, who were defeated in the recent elections to the Corporation of the City of Nagpur, filed an application for a writ of mandamus and other reliefs, alleging that the elections were not held in accordance with law due to errors in the electoral rolls. The electoral roll for the Dharampeth ward included the names of voters from the Telankhedi area, which was actually part of the Ramdas Peth ward. The applicants contended that this inclusion was illegal and that the electoral rolls should be corrected.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the electoral roll is conclusive on the point of the right of a voter to vote in any particular ward or constituency. Once published, it cannot be questioned. Any error in the roll must be corrected by the State Government under the proviso to Rule 7(1). The court also held that the elections were legal as they were held on the current electoral roll.
Issues: 1. Whether the electoral roll is conclusive on the point of the right of a voter to vote in any particular ward or constituency? 2. Whether an error in the electoral roll can be corrected after it has been published? 3. Whether the elections were held in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (2 of 1950), Sec. 10, 420(2), Rules 3, 6, 7(1), 10, and case laws such as Queen v. Tugwell, In the matter of Amulyadhan Addy, and Ataul Haq v. Chairman Manicktola Municipality to arrive at its decision. The court held that the electoral roll is conclusive on the point of the right of a voter to vote in any particular ward or constituency. Once published, it cannot be questioned. Any error in the roll must be corrected by the State Government under the proviso to Rule 7(1). The court also held that the elections were legal as they were held on the current electoral roll.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed with costs.
1. This is an application for a writ of mandamus and other reliefs by the applicants X and 2 who were defeated in the recent elections to the Corporation of the City of Nagpur by the non-applicants 1 and 2, from ward No. 40 (Dharampeth) and ward No. 41 (Ramdas Peth) respectively.
2. The admitted facts are: The City of Nagpur is divided into wards and the Telankhedi area is included in the Ramdas Peth ward but the names of the voters of the Telankhedi area, about 1900 in number, are included in the electoral roll of the Dharampeth ward, though proviso (ii) to Section 10 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (2 of 1950), (hereinafter referred to as the Act), provides that no person shall be entitled to be enrolled on the electoral roll of a ward unless he resides in that ward. No objection was taken to this inclusion by any of those voters or by anybody else till the' electoral roll was finally published on 12-4-1952. Thereafter the applicants moved the Chief Executive Officer (non-applicant No. 3) to correct the electoral rolls-by excluding the names of these voters from the electoral roll of Dharampeth ward and by including them in that for the Ramdas Peth ward. The Chief Executive Officer did so by his order dated 7-6-1952 but he revoked that order on 10-8-1952 and directed that elections would be held in accordance with the electoral rolls as finally published on 12-4-1952.
3. It would be useful at this stage to state briefly the provisions relating to the preparation of the electoral rolls. Rules have been framed for this purpose under Section 420, Sub-section (2), read with Section 10 of the Act. Under Rule 3 an electoral roll for each ward and constituency, prepared in accordance with Rules 1 & 2 is published and a proclamation is made in each ward and other places that the electoral roll has been published & can be inspected at the places mentioned in the proclamation. To the copies of the electoral roll a notice is affixed intimating that any person whose name is not on the roll and any person whose name is on the roll and who objects to the inclusion of the name of any other person therein may prefer a claim or an objection in the manner and within the time specified in the rules to the Chief Executive Officer. Thus a person whose name is not included in the roll can make the claim to have his name included.
Similarly, any person whose name is on the roll and who objects to the inclusion of the name of any other person therein can make an objection to have it removed. The decision of the Chief Executive Officer on such a claim or objection is final and no revision lies against it to any authority whatsoever. The electoral roll is to be corrected in accordance with such orders, if any, and the corrected roll is to be published under Rule 6. Thereafter the Chief Executive Officer can correct only clerical errors in the electoral roll at any time up to the date of election, but on a reference by an elector. As laid down in Rule 7, an electoral roll republished under Rule 6 comes into force from the date of republication and continues in force for a period of five years, after which the roll has to be revised. The State Government alone is empowered by the proviso to this rule to direct revision of the electoral roll in whole or in part at any time before the expiration of the said period of five years. It is this electoral roll under which elections have to be held till a new roll is substituted even though the period of five years has expired. This is Rule 10.
4. For obvious reasons it is not left to a polling officer to determine whether a person who comes to vote possesses the qualifications enumerated in Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 12, or is subject to the disqualifications enumerated in Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (3) of that section. These questions have to be determined at the time of the preparation of the electoral roll; and if the name of a voter is not entered in the roll of a ward or sp