Varghese Mechery v. Director Of Local Bodies — 1963 DIGILAW 201 (KER)

JUDGMENT C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. In this writ petition Mr. K. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenges as illegal and void, the elections, that took place to the Municipal Council of Trichur on 26-9-1962. 2. The main contention that has been urged by Mr. Chandrasekharan is that the existence of a valid and proper electoral roll is a condition precedent for the 'holding of proper and legal election. In this case it is the contention of the learned counsel that the municipal electoral roll, that was published on 24-9-1962, on the basis of which the elections to the Municipal council were held on 26-9-1962, is not one prepared and published in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act XIV of 1961). 3. On the other hand, the stand that is taken on behalf of the 2nd respondent, by the learned Advocate General, is that the presentation and publication of the municipal electoral roll on 24-9-1962 is strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act and the relevant rules, read with the material provisions contained in the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (Central Act XLIII of 1950), as amended, along with the rules concerned, namely the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. 4. In order to appreciate the contentions that have been raised by Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing far the 2nd respondent, it is necessary to state a few facts, So far as the facts themselves are concerned and which are to be stated immediately, there does not appear to be any controversy. 5. The Government issued a notification under R.2 of the Municipal Councillors Election Rules, 1961, on 18-3-1962, intimating that elections to the Municipal councils, concerned are to take place on particular dates. There is no controversy that so far as this particular municipality is concerned, the elections were notified to take place on 26-9-1962. The said notification also prescribed the last day for receipt of nominations as 28-6-1962; and it also provided that 30-8-1962 will be the date for scrutiny. It also provided that the last date for withdrawals, if any, is to be on 7-9-1962. It is also seen that on 24-9-1962 the municipal electoral roll was published in this case by the electoral authority. It also provided that the last date for withdrawals, if any, is to be on 7-9-1962. It is also seen that on 24-9-1962 the municipal electoral roll was published in this case by the electoral authority. And there is also no controversy that it is on the basis of the electoral roll published on that day, that the actual elections themselves took place on 26-9-1962. Respondents 4 to 35 who were subsequently impleaded, are the municipal councillors who have been so elected to the Trichur Municipal council on 26-9-1962. 6. It will also be seen that for the Trichur Assembly constituency, the electoral roll has been published on 2-9-1961 under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the rules thereunder. There is also no controversy that for the year 1962, there was a final publication of the Trichur Assembly constituency roll only on 22-10-1962. 7. According to Mr. K. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, to constitute a proper Trichur municipal electoral roll, on the basis of which elections ought to be held, the electoral roll published on 24-9-1962, should have been in accordance with the names of the voters found in the Trichur Assembly constituency roll prepared and published on 2-9-1961. It is the further case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the municipal electoral roll published on 24-9-1962, admittedly about 400 to 440 voters, whose names did not find a place in the Trichur Assembly constituency roll published on 2-9-1961, have been included and those persons have also taken part in the elections that took place on 26-9-1962, to the Trichur municipal council. Therefore, the learned counsel urged that in as much as the list itself is absolutely void, the elections held on the basis of the list of 24-9-1962, is again totally void. 8. No doubt, a reading of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, gives the impression that there has been an annual revision, so to say, that appears to have taken place in 1962 in respect of the Trichur Assembly constituency, and that roll was finally published on 22-10-1962. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, gives the impression that there has been an annual revision, so to say, that appears to have taken place in 1962 in respect of the Trichur Assembly constituency, and that roll was finally published on 22-10-1962. If the position in this case is really one of an annual revision of the electoral roll for 1962, I should frankly state that there is considerable difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Advocate General that the preparation and publication of the municipal electoral roll on 24-9-1962, in the manner in which it has been done, is still valid according to law. But in the course of the hearing of this writ petition, the learned Advocate General has placed before me two communications, one issued by the election department of the State on 20th August 1962", and another, so to say, a consequential direction issued by the Director of Municipalities to the various Municipal commissioners on 24-8-1962. I will have to advert to these communications a little later, while I discuss the legal aspect more elaborately. But for the present, it must be noted that from these two communications it will be seen that 400 to 440 persons, whose names admittedly found a place in the municipal electoral roll published on 24-9-1962 and whose names admittedly were not included in the Trichur Assembly constituency roll published on 2-9-1961, have been so included under S.23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, in which case, in my view, the position radically differs in law, as I will presently show. 9. It is also necessary to advert to the material provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 as well as the rules framed thereunder, and also to certain provisions in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and also some material rules occurring in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 framed under the said statute itself. 10. So far as Municipal elections are concerned, the provisions occurring in the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act XIV of 1961), are to be found in Chap.4 of Part 2 of the said Act. Chap.4 bears the general heading "Election of Councillors" and takes in a group of S.56 to 76. 10. So far as Municipal elections are concerned, the provisions occurring in the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 (Act XIV of 1961), are to be found in Chap.4 of Part 2 of the said Act. Chap.4 bears the general heading "Election of Councillors" and takes in a group of S.56 to 76. But those sections can themselves be divided into three smaller groups, i. e., S.56 to 66 which deal with elections of councillors; S.66 to 75 which deal with electoral offences; and S.76 which deals with oath of office. At this stage I may also mention that S.65 occurring in the first group, deals with the determination of validity of elections. So far as that is concerned, jurisdiction has been given, in the circumstances mentioned therein, to the District Judge. But in as much as in this case, no contention has been taken on behalf of the respondents, in the counter affidavit filed in this Court, that on the basis of S.65 there is any bar to this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is not necessary for me to consider, under what circumstances a voter can approach the District Judge for relief under S.65 of the Act. Therefore, I will proceed on this basis that this Court has got jurisdiction even under Article 226, when a large attack, so to say, regarding the legality of the entire elections as held, is taken, that question can certainly be gone into by this Court. The position, in my view, is also well settled by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. Radhe Shyam Dani ( AIR 1957 SC 304 ). There also the attack related to the holding of municipal elections on the basis of an invalid or illegally prepared electoral roll. But it is not really necessary for me to consider the various other aspects that have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in that decision. There also the attack related to the holding of municipal elections on the basis of an invalid or illegally prepared electoral roll. But it is not really necessary for me to consider the various other aspects that have been dealt with by the Supreme Court in that decision. But the principle, so to say, namely that there should be a proper electoral roll on the basis of which alone elections can be legally held, has been emphasised by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 12 at page 308 of the report, as follows: "It is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained, and in older that a proper electoral roll should be maintained, it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll, opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned." The above extract will clearly show that according to the Supreme Court, a proper electoral roll should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained, it is also necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. The above extract clearly emphasises, if I may say so with respect, that one of the sine qua non for having proper elections conducted, is the preparation and maintenance of a proper electoral roll. Therefore, it will be seen that this Court can certainly consider the very large attack that has been made in this case, because if that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, it cannot be disputed, that it goes to the root of the elections themselves; in which case the elections will have to be considered to be illegal and as such void. But the question is whether this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be accepted in the circumstances of this case. 11. The material provisions coming under the first group of Sections in Chap.4 of Part 2 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, which have to be considered for the purpose of this writ petition, are S.56, 57 and 58. S.56(1) deals with the issue of notification by the State Government regarding the division of the Municipality into wards and such other similar matters. Under S.56(4) it is provided that all the electors of a ward, irrespective of the community to which they belong, shall be entitled to vote at an election to any seat in that ward, whether reserved or non reserved. This again emphasises the right safeguarded to the electors of a ward to take part in the voting at an election that is to be held. The only other sub-section that is to be noted in S.56, is sub-s.(6) which is to the effect that if an elector gives more than one vote to any one candidate, in contravention of the provisions of sub-s.(5), then at the time of counting of votes, only one of the votes given by him to such candidate shall be taken into account and the other vote given by him to such candidate shall be rejected as void. All these prima facie will indicate that there must be a proper electoral roll giving exactly and clearly the names of the electors who are entitled to take part in the elections. 12. S.57 deals with qualifications for inclusion in electoral roll for the municipality and publication thereof. It is only necessary to advert to sub-s.(1) of S.57 without the Explanations, because, in my view, the Explanations as such do not have much of a bearing on the particular aspect that I have to consider in this writ petition. Sub-s.57 is as follows: "57. Qualifications for inclusion in electoral roll for the municipality and publication thereof. - (1) Every person whose name is included in such part of the electoral roll for any Assembly constituency as relates to the municipality or any portion thereof shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll for the municipality prepared for the purposes of this Act, and no other person shall be entitled to be included in such roll. * * * * " It will be seen that S.57(1) particularly refers to two aspects, namely a positive aspect and a negative aspect. The positive aspect is that every person whose name is included in the electoral roll for any Assembly constituency as relates to the municipality, shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll for the Municipality. And the negative aspect is that which is emphasised by the latter part of sub-s.(1), namely that no other person shall be entitled to be included in such roll. Therefore, the object is very clear, namely that a person, whose name has been included in the electoral roll that has been prepared for any Assembly constituency, is entitled to have his name included as a voter in the relevant electoral roll that will have to be prepared for the municipality. There is also the converse aspect of it, namely that if a person's name is not included in the electoral roll for any Assembly constituency, it follows that he is not entitled to be included in the electoral roll that will have to be prepared for the municipality. Practically it amounts to this, namely that an electoral roll that is to be prepared for conducting municipal elections, is to be only adopted and copied from the electoral roll that has been prepared for any Assembly constituency, in so far as it relates to a municipality. 13. S.57(2) gives jurisdiction to the authorities concerned to have due regard to the publication, revision, or amendment that may have to be effected to an electoral roll published under the Representation of the People Act, 1950; and the Election authority or any person authorised by him, is to make the necessary correction to the municipal electoral roll. 14. The other provision that is to be considered is S.58, which is as follows: "58. Amendments to electoral roll.- Notwithstanding anything contained in S.57, the election authority may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, publish in such manner as the Government may direct, amendments to the electoral roll for any municipality for the purpose of bringing it into accord with the electoral roll for the relevant Assembly Constituency". Amendments to electoral roll.- Notwithstanding anything contained in S.57, the election authority may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, publish in such manner as the Government may direct, amendments to the electoral roll for any municipality for the purpose of bringing it into accord with the electoral roll for the relevant Assembly Constituency". Under S.58 it will be seen that an obligation is cast upon the election authority to bring upto date the electoral roll for any municipality, in accordance with the electoral roll for the relevant Assembly constituency. Therefore, Mr. K. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded in his contention that the electoral roll that has been prepared for an Assembly constituency is certainly a very material or important document to be taken into account for the preparation of an electoral roll for a municipality. That proposition as such cannot be controverted and it has not been controverted also by the learned Advocate General in these proceedings. 15. Now it is necessary to refer to one or two rules in the rules that have been framed under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, namely the Municipal Councillors Election Rules, 1961. Those rules will also surely support the stand taken by Mr. K. Chandrasekharan learned counsel for the petitioner in these proceedings, that the preparation and maintenance of a proper electoral roll is absolutely necessary for a legal and valid election. R.2 of the said rules provides for the issue of a notification regarding the conduct of the elections to the municipalities and also various other incidental matters. I have already indicated that the notification that has been issued on 18-8-1962 is strictly in accordance with R.2 referred to above. Under R.4(1) which relates to nomination of candidates. it is provided that the nomination form shall be given to any elector whose name is on the electoral roll for the municipality. Therefore, it will be seen unless a person's name is found in the electoral roll for the municipality, he would not be entitled to get the nomination form referred to in R.4(1). it is provided that the nomination form shall be given to any elector whose name is on the electoral roll for the municipality. Therefore, it will be seen unless a person's name is found in the electoral roll for the municipality, he would not be entitled to get the nomination form referred to in R.4(1). Again, it will be seen that under R.4(2) there is a requirement that every nomination paper is to be signed by two electors of the ward concerned as proposer and seconder; which again means that the proposer and seconder must be voters in the ward, which again contemplates that their names should find a place in the electoral roll maintained by the authorities concerned for the purpose of conducting the municipal elections. The position is again made clear by reference to R.8(2)(ii) in particular, which deals with the Election officer examining the nomination papers and rejecting any nomination on the ground that the proposer or seconder is a person whose name is not registered on the electoral roll. Here again, the emphasis is on the fact that the proposer and the seconder must be persons who are registered on the electoral roll prepared for the purpose of conducting the municipal elections. The other rule that requires to be noted is R.25 which deals with the actual procedure at the election itself. The Presiding or Polling officer is given jurisdiction under R.25 to inquire of a person, who presents himself to vote and before that ballot paper is supplied to him, whether he is the person enrolled as found in the electoral roll and whether he has already voted at the present election in the same ward. And there is an obligation on the part of the voter to give a categoric 'yes' or 'no' to those questions; if the answer is doubtful or uncertain, it follows that the Presiding or Polling officer can certainly prevent such a person from taking part in the election. All these rules emphasise that there must be a proper electoral roll prepared for the purpose of conducting the elections to the municipality. And to that extend the position can be accepted as fairly well settled. 16. All these rules emphasise that there must be a proper electoral roll prepared for the purpose of conducting the elections to the municipality. And to that extend the position can be accepted as fairly well settled. 16. But the difficulty in accepting the contention of K. Chandrasekharan learned counsel for the petitioner in this case, that the electoral roll that has been published on 24-9-1962 is illegal, arises when I refer to some of the provisions in the Representation of the People Act and also the rules framed thereunder. Part III of the said Act deals with electoral rolls for Assembly constituencies. S.14(b) defines "qualifying date" in relation to the preparation or revision of every electoral roll under Part III, as the 1st day of January of the year in which it is so prepared or revised. The emphasis, it will be seen, is on the preparation or revision because that again is dealt with in the latter part of the statute itself. It is not necessary to consider the various other sections in the Act, excepting S.21, 22 and 23. 17. S.21 deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. S.21(1) provides for the electoral roll for each constituency being prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date, and that is to come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under the Act. In fact considerable reliance has been placed upon this sub-section by Mr. Chandrasekharan learned counsel for the petitioner that unless there has been a final publication of the electoral roll, it cannot be considered to have come into force. Pausing here for a minute, it has to be noted that it is the contention of the learned counsel that the final electoral roll for the Trichur Assembly constituency having been admittedly published only on 22-10-1962 and that roll not being available when the municipal electoral roll was published on 24-9-1962 the latter roll must be considered to be illegal and void. I will immediately show that it is not possible to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because certain other Sections also will have to be taken into account. 18. I will immediately show that it is not possible to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, because certain other Sections also will have to be taken into account. 18. Sub-s.(2) of S.21 of the Act deals with the electoral roll that has been prepared under S.21(1) being revised in every subsequent year in the manner prescribed by the rules, by reference to the qualifying date. Therefore S.21(1) deals with the initial publication of the electoral roll for an Assembly Constituency, and S.21(2) deals with the revision of that roll that has been prepared and published under S.21(1). There is also a provision in S.21(3) authorising the Election Commissioner himself, at any time for reasons to be recorded, to direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or a part of the constituency. 19. The procedure to be adopted in the matter of preparation and publication of the original electoral roll under S.21(1), as well as the revision and preparation of the final roll under S.21(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 , is clearly dealt with in the rules that have been framed, namely, the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, to some of which I will have to make reference a little later. But at this stage it may be mentioned that even in respect of revision of the electoral roll under S.21(2) of the Act, it will be seen, by reference to the material rules, that the same procedure that has to be adopted in the matter of preparation and publication of the original electoral roll under S.21(1), has to be adopted. That is why I mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment that if the case of the respondents is that the names of about 400 or 440 voters have been included in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency of 1962 and in consequence those names have been included in the municipal electoral roll by virtue of S.21(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, there will be considerable difficulty in accepting the contention of the learned Advocate General that the preparation of the municipal electoral roll on the basis of such Assembly constituency electoral roll is valid and legal according to the provisions of the statute. Because, the relevant rules themselves will clearly show that the same procedure that has to be adopted in respect of the preparation of the original electoral roll under S.21(1) will apply ad idem to the preparation of a revised roll under S.21(2). Therefore, the respondents will be able to sustain the preparation of the municipal electoral roll in the manner it has been done in this case, only if they are able to satisfy this court that the names of the 400 or 440 voters included in the municipal electoral roll had been included already in the Assembly Constituency electoral roll by virtue of action being taken by them either under S.22 or S.23(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. 20. It is in this connection that the order of the State Government issued on 20th August 1962, bears considerable significance. After reference to the material sections of the statute, and the rules thereunder, I will immediately refer to the order of the Government itself. 21. S.22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 deals with the correction of entries in electoral rolls. It also mentions the circumstances under which such correction and entries are to be made in the electoral roll. The correction may be made either by the Electoral Registration officer suo motu or on application made to him, under the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) to (c) of S.22. But the point to be noted is that when action is to be taken on the basis of S.22, there is an obligation on the authority concerned, specifically mentioned in the proviso to S.22, to give an opportunity to the person against whom action is being taken, in the manner indicated in S.22, and final decision has to be arrived at under S.22, only after such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It will be seen that under S.22 the correction to be made to the electoral roll, must have reference to the electoral roll that has been already prepared and published under S.21(1) or already prepared and revised under S.21(2) of the statute, because that will have to be considered as the electoral roll and in respect of which the correction and entries are to be made under S.22. 22. 22. Then again, the other provision, namely S.23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which is relied upon by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents, deals with inclusion of names in the electoral rolls. S.22, I have already pointed out, substantially deals with removal of names or change of names from one roll to another, whereas S.23 deals with the inclusion of names in the electoral roll. S.23(1) gives a right to any person, whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency - which again must have reference to the electoral roll that had been originally prepared under S.21(1), or the electoral roll that had been revised under S.21(2) - to apply, in the manner provided in sub-s.(2) for the inclusion of his name in that roll. The authority to whom, and the circumstances under which, the application is to be made, are dealt with under sub-s.(3) of S.23. I do not think it necessary to consider the scope of that sub-section. Sub-s.(3) gives again jurisdiction to the authorities specified in S.23(2), if they are satisfied that the applicant's name is to be registered and entered in the electoral roll, to direct his name to be included therein. That means that inclusion of the applicant's name must be in the electoral roll, which electoral roll can be either the original roll prepared under S.21(1), or the revised roll prepared under S.21(2). Here again, it will be seen that under S.23 there is no provision made for any publication of the inclusion of any particular name in the electoral roll as desired by the applicant under S.23(1); nor is there such a provision in S.22 itself. Under S.22 proviso, it is specifically stated that if a section is to be taken under any of the clauses mentioned in that Section an opportunity has to be given to the person who will be prejudiced by action being taken in that regard. 23. So far as S.23 is concerned, as to what exactly is to be done, is provided under the rules themselves, namely the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and particularly R.26, to which I will have to refer later. 23. So far as S.23 is concerned, as to what exactly is to be done, is provided under the rules themselves, namely the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and particularly R.26, to which I will have to refer later. Therefore, it will be seen that the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, quite clearly shows that the publication of the electoral roll and its coming into force immediately on such publication, is required only in the case of preparation of the original roll under S.21(1) and that will also apply to the electoral roll that is revised under S.21(2) because the procedure in respect of that as indicated in the rules is identical with the procedure indicated under S.21(1). But so far as correction I of entries in electoral roll under S.22, and inclusion of names in electoral rolls under S.23 are concerned, it will be seen that there is absolutely no provision to the effect that either the correction under S.22 or the inclusion of names under S.23 will be valid and legal only on the publication of the electoral rolls, because it will be seen that cases dealt with under S.22 or under S.23 may be individual cases; and on that ground the statute itself does not require that the electoral roll itself should be republished every time when there is a correction or inclusion of name. But when a general revision is taking place, certainly the Legislature contemplates that the same procedure in respect of the original preparation and publication of the electoral roll, will have to be followed and adopted in respect of the general revision also. 24. I will immediately advert to some of the material rules occurring in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. R.4 deals with the preparation of electoral roll for each constituency in such form and in such language as the Election Commission may direct. There are various other matters provided in that rule which I do not think are necessary to be considered for the purpose of this writ petition. R.10 provides for publication of the roll in draft. The further publicity to the roll and notice are provided in R.11. Then there is elaborate provision made for receipt of claims and objections and the manner in which such claims and objections are to be adjudicated upon. R.10 provides for publication of the roll in draft. The further publicity to the roll and notice are provided in R.11. Then there is elaborate provision made for receipt of claims and objections and the manner in which such claims and objections are to be adjudicated upon. After all these formalities are gone through, it will be seen, that the electoral roll made under S.21(1) must go for final publication. And it is provided that the registration officer is to publish the roll together with the list of amendments, by making a complete copy thereof available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form 16 at his office. R.22(2) categorically states that the roll together with the list of amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency. Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed considerable reliance on R.22(2) in support of his contention that unless there has been a publication it cannot be acted upon for the purpose of preparing the municipal electoral roll in turn. But it will be seen that that provision relates only to the original publication of the Assembly constituency roll for any particular constituency, R.23 provides for filing appeals from orders deciding claims and objections. But the point to be noted is that this procedure culminating in the final publication of the electoral roll under S.22 is contemplated in the case of preparation of Assembly constituency roll for any particular constituency. Then it will be seen that R.25 deals with the annual revision of rolls. Under R.25(1) it is provided that the roll for every constituency shall be revised under sub-s.(2) of S.21, either intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily, as the Election Commission may direct. That really relates to what is provided in S.21(2) of the statute itself, to which I have already made reference. But again the aspect to be noted in R.25 is what is provided under sub-r.(2) wherein it is stated that where the roll or any part of the roll is to be revised intensively in any year, it is to be prepared afresh; and so far as that is concerned rules 4 to 23 relating to the preparation and publication of electoral roll, shall apply in relation to such revision. Therefore rules 4 to 23 make it very clear that elaborate preparation and publication are necessary (a) in the case of original preparation and publication of electoral roll for a constituency under S.21(1) of the statute, and (b) in the case of revision of the electoral roll under S.21(2) of the statute. 25. So far as the correction of entries and inclusion of names provided for by S.22 and 23 respectively of the Act are concerned, the procedure in relation to those matters is indicated in R.26. That rule provides that every application under S.22, or sub-s.(1) of S.23 shall be made in duplicate in one of the forms referred to in the said rule itself; and the authority to whom such application is to be made is also indicated. But here again, it will be noted that under sub-r.(3) of R.26 the Chief Electoral Officer, who has to deal with the application, shall immediately on receipt of such application, direct that one copy thereof is to be posted in some conspicuous place in his office, together with a notice inviting objections to such application, within the period mentioned therein; i. e. an opportunity is to be given under this sub-rule to any person to object to a claim that may be made either under S.22 or the order proposed to be made under S.23 of the Act. But under sub-r.(4) of R.26, it is provided that after all these formalities are gone through in respect of applications under S.22 or 23(1), the authority concerned, if he is satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the roll, has to give a direction that his name be included therein. Therefore it will be seen that if all these formalities have been gone through and if ultimately action is taken under S.23 and names of persons who had made applications under R.26 have been accepted, there is no option left to the authority concerned but to direct that his or their names be included in the electoral roll. And that electoral roll, in which their names are included, must certainly be the original roll that has been published under S.21(1) or the roll that has been revised and published under S.21(2) of the Act. Now, the question is whether having due regard to the statutory provisions and the rules, the contention of Mr. And that electoral roll, in which their names are included, must certainly be the original roll that has been published under S.21(1) or the roll that has been revised and published under S.21(2) of the Act. Now, the question is whether having due regard to the statutory provisions and the rules, the contention of Mr. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has to be accepted. 26. Before I advert to that aspect, this is a convenient stage to refer to the communication issued by the State Election Department on 20th August 1962. It would have been better if this aspect had been referred to in the counter affidavit itself; in which case, the position would have been beyond all controversy that the inclusion of the names of 400 or 440 voters had been already made in the Assembly constituency electoral roll, by action being taken under S.23 of the Representation of the People Act. But anyhow, the order issued by the State Government makes it quite clear and I will advert to that order presently. That itself is a general circular issued to all the Municipalities as well as the Director of Municipalities. That order bears No. 5544/El-2/62-1/Elec. and is dated 20th August 1962. The subject is specifically stated to be "Electoral rolls of 1961- inclusion of names under S.23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950"'. The State Government states in the said order that after the general elections to the House of the People held in February 1962, the Electoral Registration Officers and the Chief Electoral Officer have passed orders authorising the inclusion of names of persons in the electoral rolls of 1961, "under S.23 of the Representation ' of the People Act, 1950." In consequence of this, it is stated that the Electoral Registration Officers were also directed to intimate the authorities of the Local Bodies about such fresh inclusions in the rolls of 1961. Pausing here for a minute, the Electoral rolls of 1961, referred to in the Government order, relates to the Assembly Constituency rolls in respect of the municipality in question, namely the Trichur Assembly Constituency Electoral rolls, published on 2-9-1961, and it is to that roll that additions had been made under S.23 of the Representation of the People Act and having due regard to the qualifying date referred to in S.14 of the said Act itself. 27. 27. Then it is stated in the Government Order that such persons whose names have been added to the roll of 1961, are eligible to stand for election and vote in the elections to the local bodies conducted on the basis of those rolls. It is also no doubt stated that the newly enrolled names were also included in the draft amendments published during the revision of 1962. 28. Then the State Government refer to the representation that appears to have been made to the Government that in certain places such newly included names have not been incorporated in the rolls of the municipalities in respect of which elections are to take place in September, and in as much as those persons are eligible to stand as candidates and to vote in the ensuing municipal elections, on the basis of registration in the Assembly rolls of 1961, the State Government give a direction to the Electoral Registration Officers to supply the Municipal Commissioners a consolidated and complete list of all the names so included in respect of each municipality immediately. There is again a further direction that the Municipal Commissioners are to take appropriate action to include such persons also in their electoral rolls. 29. On the basis of this circular issued by the State Government on 20th August 1962, the Director of Municipalities has again issued a circular on 24-8-1962, to all the Municipal Commissioners, except Calicut, wherein the Director draws the attention of the Commissioners to the Government order of 20th August, 1962, and directs that the Commissioners concerned are to contact the Electoral Registration Officers personally and get copies of the inclusions of additional names and to have them published before noon of 27th August 1962. 30. It is really the case of the 2nd respondent, namely the Election Officer, in these proceedings, and who is the Municipal Commissioner, Trichur, that on this basis the Municipal Electoral roll has been published on 24-9-1962. Therefore according to the respondent, the action taken in the matter of preparing the Municipal electoral roll and publishing it on 24-9-1962, based upon the additions made by the authority concerned in respect of the Trichur Assembly Constituency roll for 1961, and the action having been taken on the basis of S.23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, is perfectly justified. The learned Government Pleader has also pointed out that under S.57 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, it is that roll that has to be taken into account for the purpose of preparing the Municipal electoral roll, and that is the roll that has been adopted in this case in the preparation of the Municipal electoral roll that was published on 24-9-1962. 31. I am perfectly satisfied, having due regard to the various matters referred to above, that the municipal electoral roll published on 24-9-1962 is valid under S.57 and 58 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960. 32. There was a further contention raised by Mr. K. Chandrasekharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in this case it was quite unfair on the part of the authorities concerned to have chosen to publish the municipal electoral roll as late as 24-9-1962 when the elections were to have taken place on 26-9-1962. I see considerable force in this contention of the learned counsel. Though the elections themselves cannot be set aside in these proceedings and though I have already held that the preparation and publication of the municipal electoral roll dated 24-9-1962, on the basis of which the elections to the municipality in question have taken place on 26-9-1962, are perfectly legal and valid, nevertheless, it is necessary to state that the authorities concerned will certainly do well to have due regard to the provisions of the statute and the material rules in the matter of publication of such rolls and making them available to the parties concerned as early as possible. In this case, certainly the time given, namely two days, can be considered to be very short. But in this case this court cannot give any relief to the petitioner in respect of that matter. The authorities will also have to take into account the provisions made in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and also the rules made under the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960, namely the Municipal Councillors Election Rules, 1961, wherein provisions have been made for the issue of a notification regarding the elections to take place, clearly before 30 days; and there is also provision made regarding the filing of nominations, and also as to who exactly are the persons who are to be the proposer and the seconder. All these can be dealt with and appreciated by the voters, only if a proper electoral roll, prepared according to law, has been made available to the public of that area where the elections are to take place, sufficiently early. This is an aspect which the authorities should certainly take into account. But as I mentioned earlier, this court cannot certainly interfere on the ground that the interval between the date of publication of the municipal electoral roll, viz., 24-9-1962, and the date when the elections actually took place, viz., 26-9-1962, is very short. That is not a matter, on the basis of which alone, this court can grant any relief to the petitioner. 33. In the result the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their costs.