Judgment :- 1. The writ applicant is a voter in the Adoor Panchayat. He has challenged the entire elections that took place on 4-12-1963 in the Panchayat. 2. The two main contentions raised in the writ application are that S.10 (1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act has not been complied with and that there has been no proper publication of the electoral rolls as envisaged by S.14 of that Act read with R.6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Publication of Electoral Rolls and Publication of List of Polling Stations) Rules, 1962. In order to understand these contentions one or two facts must be stated and the Sections must be read. S.10 of the Kerala Panchayats Act 1960, Act 32 of 1960, was amended by the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1962. Before the amendment, the relevant parts of S.10 (1) read as follows: "10. Division of Panchayat area into wards and method of election-(1) For the purpose of election of members to a Panchayat, the Deputy Director may in his jurisdiction, by notification in the prescribed manner: (a) divide the Panchayat area into as many wards as there are non-reserved seats; and (b) (2) (4) (5) (6) (7) When issuing under sub-section (1) a notification which materially alters the existing division of a Panchayat area into wards the Deputy Director may direct that the alteration shall take effect from the date of the next ordinary elections. (8) When a number of members to be returned by a ward is altered or when a new ward is formed or when an existing ward is abolished, the Deputy Director shall determine by notification (a) the ward which each member then on the Panchayat shall be deemed to represent; and (b) the ward or wards in which elections shall be held to fill vacancies, if any, in the Panchayat. 3. By the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1962 the first paragraph of sub-section (1) of S.10 was substituted by the following: "For the purpose of election of members to a Panchayat, the Deputy Director may in his jurisdiction, after previous publication and hearing of objections, if any, and after consulting the Panchayat where there is a Panchayat, by notification in the prescribed manner;" 4. It is seen from the above that by the amendment the previous publication and hearing of objections and consultation with the Panchayat have become conditions precedent before a notification dividing the Panchayat into wards can be published under S.10. To provide for cases were notifications had already been issued before the amendments came into operation a specific provision was introduced in S.4 of the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1962 which is in these terms: "4. Revision of orders dividing Panchayats into wards- (1) The notifications dividing Panchayat areas into wards published before the commencement of this Act by the Deputy Directors of Panchayats under S.10 of the Kerala Panchayats Act 1960 (Act 32 of 1960) shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act or notifications, be deemed to be proposals for the division of the Panchayat areas into wards and any person interested may file before the Deputy Director concerned objections or suggestions for modification to the said proposal within 30 days from the date of commencement of this Act." Coming to the facts of this case it is admitted, that there has been a notification issued under S.10 of Act 32 of 1960 on 20-2-1962. It is also asserted in the counter affidavit that has been filed that no objections were taken to that notification even after the coming into force of the Kerala Panchayats (Amendment) Act, 1962 which was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 2nd May, 1962. So there was another notification under S.10 (1), a final notification, on 31-8-1962. It appears to me therefore that there has been no infringement of S.10(1) of the Kerala Panchayats Act as it stood amended. The further contention that is raised relates to the publication of the electoral rolls. It is asserted that the electoral rolls which have to be published under S.14 of the Kerala Panchayats Act was published on 27-2-1962 and this was before the notification under S.10 (1) published on 31-8-1962 and that therefore no objections could be taken to the electoral rolls published on 27-2-1962 on the basis of the delimitation effected by the notification dated 31-8-1962. This fact is however denied and it is said that electoral rolls were again published under S.14 on 30-10-1962. This fact is however denied and it is said that electoral rolls were again published under S.14 on 30-10-1962. If that be so, there can be no violation either of S.14 or R.6 of the Kerala Panchayats (Publication of Electoral Rolls and Publication of List of Polling Stations) Rules, 1962. 5. Assuming there has been any violation or any non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of any Rules made thereunder it appears to me that even so an application for the issue of a writ quashing the entire elections that took place in a Panchayat is not maintainable. I say so for the reason that the statute provides a special remedy. Provision is made for setting aside the election in a particular ward on the ground of non-compliance with the Act and or Rules. This is contained in S.22 (1) (d) (iv) 'by any non-compliance with the provisions of this Act or of any rules made thereunder". This however is not allowed to stand by itself in order that a petition under S.22 may be maintainable. There must be non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or any Rules framed thereunder complied with a further requirement "that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected" by such non-compliance. Whether the results of the election have been materially affected by non-compliance with the Act and or the Rules cannot, in the nature of things, be made the subject matter of an enquiry in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. This will require the taking of elaborate evidence, the examination of numerous witnessess and the scrutiny of several documents. It appears to me that this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is misconceived. 6. However, counsel on behalf of the petitioner has very strenuously urged that this is not a petition challenging a particular election of a particular candidate in a particular ward of the Panchayat for which alone provision has been made in S.22 of the Kerala Panchayats Act and that the prayer being to set aside the entire elections on the ground that there has been no proper de-limitation of the wards and the drawing up of proper electoral rolls, this petition is maintainable. Reliance for this proposition has been placed on two decisions of the Patna High Court. Reliance for this proposition has been placed on two decisions of the Patna High Court. The first of this is in Parameshwar Mahaseth and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1958 Pat. 149 and the latter, Bishwanath Prasad and others v. Ramji Prasad Sinha and others is reported in 1964 Pat. 459. The question whether a writ application is maintainable is dealt with in paragraph 14 of each of these judgments. In Paramtswar Mahaseth and others v. State of Bihar this is what Their Lordships observed: "It was urged by the learned Government Advocate that the election cannot be disputed except by an election petition, as laid down in R.62 of the Election Rules. He submitted that petitioner 9 had already filed an election petition after the presentation of this writ application. This contention is not valid. What is challenged here is not the election of a particular candidate, but the validity of the entire election, because of the violation of the essential provisions of the Election Rules and the Act. I think. R 62 provides for a case where a person challenges the election of a particular candidate. I would over-rule the objection." And in Bishwanath Prasad and others v. Ramji Prasad Sinha and others 1964 Pat. 459, this is what is stated: "The position in the present case was that the electoral roll published on 30-10-1959 was in force at the time when the District Magistrate called up in the wards to elect Commissioners of the Sitamarhi Municipality, but the revised roll published on 9-6-1960 was used at the time of the roll on 12-6-1960. There was no illegality in the notifications calling upon the wards to elect Commissioners, but the revised roll published on 9-5-1960 has been wrongly and illegally used at the time of poll and that has vitiated the entire election. People have to exercise their rights of franchise on the basis of the electoral roll and if the roll itself is not a proper one the very foundation of election is shaky and infirm and the election cannot stand. The petitioners are entitled to a writ on this ground. People have to exercise their rights of franchise on the basis of the electoral roll and if the roll itself is not a proper one the very foundation of election is shaky and infirm and the election cannot stand. The petitioners are entitled to a writ on this ground. In the present case, the validity of the entire election having been challenged on account of the violation of the provisions of the Election Rules R.62 cannot be a bar to the petitioners getting relief in the present application and reference may be made to the case of Parameshwar Mahaseth v. State of Bihar A. I. R.1958 Pat. 149." There are general observations in these judgments that if a writ application is moved challenging the entire election, the provision for setting aside a particular election contained in the Act or the relevant Rules is no bar to the maintainability of the writ application. In both these case it was found that there was no proper electoral roll. If there is no proper electoral roll I think it amounts to a denial of the right to exercise the franchise conferred on every citizen of this country. This I think would involve the infringement of a very valuable right and in these circumstances it is axiomatic that this Court will come to the aid of the citizen when denied such a right. But if the learned judges mean that even though a writ application will not lie to set aside the election in a particular ward a writ would lie when the entire election in the Panchayat is challenged, with all respect to the learned Judges, I am unable to agree. It appears to me that the statute has given a distinct indication. General non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules by itself is not sufficient to vacate an election. It must also be shown that such non-compliance has materially affected the result of the election. It is not sufficient if some defects are pointed out. 7. In cases where objection is taken, at the appropriate time, about the non-compliance with the provisions of the statute for instance an objection to an electoral roll before nomination papers are submitted or before the election took place stating that the authorities concerned refused to change or to alter the electoral rolls, this Court may be entitled to interfere. 7. In cases where objection is taken, at the appropriate time, about the non-compliance with the provisions of the statute for instance an objection to an electoral roll before nomination papers are submitted or before the election took place stating that the authorities concerned refused to change or to alter the electoral rolls, this Court may be entitled to interfere. One of such cases fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in The Chief Commissioner of Ajmer and another v. Radhey Shyam Dani reported in 1957 S. C. 304. It was decided by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer that R.7 of the concerned Elections Rules was not in consonance with and was actually in contradiction to S.30, Sub-section (2) of the relevant regulation and was in excess of the rule making power. He therefore directed the District Magistrate, Ajmer to refrain from holding the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal Committee. This decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner was affirmed by the Supreme Court and the Court observed: "It is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order 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 scrutinize 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." 8. The necessity for proper electoral rolls and affording therefore the right to exercise the franchise has been emphasised by Their Lordships. Counsel on behalf of the petitioned has relied very strenuously in the latter part of the judgment that I have extracted above for contending that where there is no electoral roll properly prepared and published the elections conducted would acquire no validity and can be set at naught by this Court. Counsel on behalf of the petitioned has relied very strenuously in the latter part of the judgment that I have extracted above for contending that where there is no electoral roll properly prepared and published the elections conducted would acquire no validity and can be set at naught by this Court. According to counsel, this means that if there is any defect in the electoral rolls or if there has been the slightest non-compliance with the provisions of the statute in relation to the preparation and publication of the electoral rolls, this court should set aside the entire elections in proceedings under Art, 226 of the Constitution. I am unable to accept this contention. It is clear that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Judicial Commissioner (respondent before the Supreme Court) to have the electoral roll rectified so as to have his name too included in the electoral roll. The approach was made for such correction before elections took place. 9. The question whether a voter who has kept quiet and not objected to the electoral rolls published in accordance with the Act and the Rules should be permitted to challenge the election results after the elections took place has not been adverted to, considered or decided by the Supreme Court. It is clear from the statute that the results declared will be final subject to defeasance for the reasons mentioned in S.22 of the Act. The election can be set aside in cases where the non-compliance has materially affected the result of the elections. Whether the non-compliance has or has not materially affected the result of the elections cannot be the subject matter on an enquiry proceedings such as this. So the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules cannot be the ground for setting aside the elections in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. I am of the view that mere asking for setting aside the entire elections cannot improve the position. 10. I dismiss this writ application with costs.