Fani Dutta v. Corporation Of Calcutta — 1965 DIGILAW 74 (CAL)

JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner, Fani Dutta, aspired to stand as a candidate for election as a Councilor to the Corporation of Calcutta, from constituency no. 36. His nomination paper was rejected on the ground that his name did not appear in the Final Electoral Roll and as such he lacked the requisite qualification to stand as a candidate. The petitioner fault aggrieved by the rejection of his nomination paper, moved this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief and obtained this Rule. He also obtained an interim injunction staying declaration that the respondent Shiv Kumar Khanna was elected uncontested as the Councilor from constituency no. 36. The respondents to this Rule are 9 in number. Respondents nos. 1, 2 and 7 are respectively the Corporation of Calcutta, its Commissioner and its Record Keeper. They appeared before this court through Mr. Malay Kumar Bose, Advocate led by Mr. Siddhartha Roy, Advocate. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and 9 are respectively the Election Officer, the Registering Authority, the revising Authority, the Returning Officer and the State of West Bengal, who appeared before this court through the learned Additional Government Pleader and Messrs. P. S. Basu and P. K. Mukherjee, Advocates. Respondent no. 8 is Shiv Kumar Khanna, the possibility of whose uncontested election is challenged in this Rule. He appeared before this court through Mr. Sushil Kumar Biswas, Advocate led by Mr. P. K. Roy, Advocate. 2. FOUR separate affidavits-in-opposition have been filed in this Rule the first one is by respondent no. 4, the Registering Authority, the second one is by respondent no. 6, the Returning Officer (along with this affidavit there is a supporting affidavit affirmed by one Mrinal Kanti Banerjee, an Assistant in the Election Department), the third one is on behalf of respondent no. 7, the Record Keeper of the Corporation, affirmed by his Senior Assistant, one Rabindra Kumar Chakravarty and the fourth one is by respondent no. 8, Shiv Kumar Khanna. To the several affidavits-in-opposition there is an affidavits-in-reply by the petitioner supported by the supporting affidavit of one Sushil Kumar Ghose. 7, the Record Keeper of the Corporation, affirmed by his Senior Assistant, one Rabindra Kumar Chakravarty and the fourth one is by respondent no. 8, Shiv Kumar Khanna. To the several affidavits-in-opposition there is an affidavits-in-reply by the petitioner supported by the supporting affidavit of one Sushil Kumar Ghose. By consent of parties, a certified copy of a page of the Final Electoral Roll (containing the name of the petitioner), which was filed by the petitioner, and a certified copy of two pages of the Final Electoral Roll (the first page containing the name of the petitioner and the second page containing an entry showing deletion of the name of the petitioner and several others from the Final Electoral Roll), filed on behalf of respondent no. 7, were collectively marked as Ext. A. The originals of the annexure P, Q and R to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 4, the Registering Authority, were also, by consent, marked respectively Exts. B, C and D. The document, of which annexure Z to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6, the Returning Officer, is a copy, was marked, by consent, as Ext. E. According to the case made by the petitioner, his name stands included in the Electoral Roll, for the time being in force for election of members to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly from, Assembly Constituency Nos. 1, 2, 3, Burt olla North, which corresponds to the present Calcutta Corporation Constituency No. 11. He further says that Ms name stood included in the Preliminary Electoral Roll of the respondent Corporation, published on January 9, 1965. He also says that the Final Electoral Roll of the respondent Corporation was published on February 20, 1965 and his name was therein included against serial no. 1158 of Part 14. On February 25, 1965, he says, he obtained a certified copy of the relevant page of the Final Electoral Roll (the first sheet in Ext. A) from the office of respondent no. 7, the Record Keeper of the respondent Corporation, which showed that his name was borne on the Roll. Assured that he was qualified to stand as a candidate, the petitioner says, he filed his nomination paper, on February 28, 1965, for election as a Councilor from Constituency No. 36. Respondent No. 8 also filed his nomination paper as a rival candidate. Assured that he was qualified to stand as a candidate, the petitioner says, he filed his nomination paper, on February 28, 1965, for election as a Councilor from Constituency No. 36. Respondent No. 8 also filed his nomination paper as a rival candidate. A third candidate also filed his nomination paper but since he has now withdrawn his candidature I am not concerned with him. March 5, 1965 was fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers. On that date an election agent of respondent no. 8 filed a written objection against the nomination of the petitioner, inter alia, on the following grounds :-- (a) That the said Shri Fani dutta's name does not appear in. the Final Electoral Roll of the said. Constituency published on 20. 2. 65. (b) That the said Shri Fani dutta's name was struck out from the Parliamentary Roll of Candidates by the Final Electoral Roll. (c) That the said Shri Fani dutta's is not a resident in any constituency within the limits of corporation of Calcutta but Re lives with his family at A/244, Bangur avenue, which is within the jurisdiction of the South Dum Dum municipality. (d) That the said Shri Fani dutta has wrongly and falsely given his address "in the nomination paper as No. 306, Acharya Prafulla chandra Road, which is a furniture shop and not a residential place, though his address in the Parliamentary Electoral Roll is different viz. 38a, Nalin Sarkar Street, calcutta. (e) That for reasons aforesaid the nomination of Shri Fani Dutta is liable to be cancelled. " along with the objection, the objector filed a certified copy of the Electoral Roll (the second and third pages of Ext. A) which showed that the petitioner's name against serial No. 1158 stood deleted. He also filed a certified copy of the rationing card of the petitioner bearing an endorsement by the wife of the petitioner, Sm. Sepalika Dutta, that the petitioner and his family "shifted from Calcutta area (38a. Nalin Sarkar Street) 21/2 years ago", (Ext. E ). A) which showed that the petitioner's name against serial No. 1158 stood deleted. He also filed a certified copy of the rationing card of the petitioner bearing an endorsement by the wife of the petitioner, Sm. Sepalika Dutta, that the petitioner and his family "shifted from Calcutta area (38a. Nalin Sarkar Street) 21/2 years ago", (Ext. E ). The petitioner filed a written reply to the objection, on the same date, couched in the following language:-"i applied for a copy of the entry in the Final Electoral Roll for 38a, Nalin Sarkar Street, Calcutta-4 within constituency No. 11 of Corporation of Calcutta and was granted a certified copy mentioning therein that the serial number of part 14 of the said Constituency No. 11 was 1158. Long after the last date of filing objection against the inclusion of any elector, I personally saw the Registering Authority of the Corporation of Calcutta Sri S. K. Sen Roy Choudhury, at his office at 1, Garstin Place, Calcutta-1 and enquired if there was any objection filed against the enrolment of my name in the said constituency No. 11. Upon this, the Registering Authority assured me, on consulting the records, that there was no objection against my name in Constituency No. 11, Shri Sushil Kumar Ghose of 308, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta-9 was all along with me, while I was discussing the aforesaid facts with the Registering Authority. From the facts stated above, I beg to submit that if a certificate be now produced before you showing that my name was deleted from the said Constituency No. 11, it was a case of interpolation. I pray that you will be pleased to examine the said Sushil Kumar Ghose to corroborate my statement. 3. I request you to kindly ignore the objection filed by Shri Shib kumar Khanna and hold my nomination paper valid. " before the Returning Officer the petitioner repeated his prayer for examination of Sushil Kumar Ghose (who has affirmed before this court an affidavit supporting the affidavit-in-reply) but, for reasons given in his order, the Returning Officer did not allow the prayer. The relevant extract from the order of the Returning Officer, is set out herein below :-"i find that the name of the candidate Dutta Fani does not appear in Final Electoral Roll for voters of the Constituency No. 11 of the Corporation of Calcutta 1964-65. The relevant extract from the order of the Returning Officer, is set out herein below :-"i find that the name of the candidate Dutta Fani does not appear in Final Electoral Roll for voters of the Constituency No. 11 of the Corporation of Calcutta 1964-65. The candidate files a certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll of the same constituency which contains the "serial No. 1158. 38a, Dutta Fani M. 51-Sashi Bhusan", but another certified copy filed by the election agent of Sri Siva Kumar Khanna, shows that the entries against serial nos. from 1158 to 1160 were omitted as per list of Amendments, 1965 under section 52 (3 ). The entry No. 1158 of Part No. 14 of Constituency No. 11 of the Final Electoral Roll 1964-65, Corporation of Calcutta against the candidate Dutta Fani is included in the list of Deletions-omitting the entries against serial Nos. from 1153 to 1160. Original Final Electoral Roll for Voters of the Constituency No. 11 of the Corporation of Calcutta was produced before me by Senior Assistant Record Keeper of the Corporation of Calcutta, who was called by me at the instance of the candidate Dutta Fani. This finally published Electoral Roll shows Deletions-omitting the entries against serial Nos. from 1158 to 1160 of Part No. 14 of the said Constituency No. 11. The Registering Authority (Sri S. R. Sen Roy Choudhury), who is present being called by me at the instance of the candidate Dutta Fani, denies the suggestion put to him by Dutta Fani that the printed list of amendments on the basis of the order of the Revising Authority of the Constituency concerned are required to be signed by him. The Registering Authority submits that on the basis of the order of the Revising Authority dated 10-2-65 (original order of the Revising Authority concerned produced by the Registering Authority examined by me) the relevant entries no. 1158 to 1160 along with other entries of the said Constituency No. 11 were omitted and the Final Electoral Roll of the Constituency No. 11 was published on 20-2-65. The suggestion made by the candidate Dutta Fani that there was no amendment showing deletion of the entry no. 1158 to 1160 along with other entries of the said Constituency No. 11 were omitted and the Final Electoral Roll of the Constituency No. 11 was published on 20-2-65. The suggestion made by the candidate Dutta Fani that there was no amendment showing deletion of the entry no. 1158 of Part 14 against his name in the Finally Published Electoral Roll of the said Constituency No. 11 and his allegation that "it was case of interpolation" at a later stage have got no basis. The suggestions and allegations of the candidate Dutta Fani cannot be accepted in view of the documents placed before me and carefully examined by me in presence of the parties concerned. I find no necessity of examining one Shri Sushil Kumar Ghosh of 308, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, as prayed for by the candidate Dutta Fani, as his oral evidence on the point raised by Dutta Fani regarding the alleged assurance given by the Registering Authority to Dutta Fani that "there was no objection against his name in constituency No. 11" cannot supersede the ample documentary evidence placed before me in respect of the deletion of the entry concerned standing against the name of the candidate Dutta Fani in the Final Electoral Roll published on 20-2. 65. The Registering Authority denies the allegation made by the candidate Dutta Fani. 4. THE Senior Assistant Record Keeper (Sri Rabindra Kumar Chakravorty) of the Calcutta Corporation states that certified copies of records are always issued after personal verification of the relevant entry by the applicant and in this case as usual complete certificate in two sheets as issued to Sri Shiv Kumar Khanna regarding the relevant entry including list of Amendment must have also been issued to the candidate Dutta Fani to his satisfaction. In view of the documents, facts and circumstances available before me, I am satisfied that the candidate Dutta is not a voter in the Constituency No. 11 or in any other Constituency of the Corporation of Calcutta as shown in the Finally Published Electoral Roll- 1964-65. According, he is not qualified to stand for election. The nomination paper of Sri Dutta Fani is therefore rejected. " aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying (1) for Writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. According, he is not qualified to stand for election. The nomination paper of Sri Dutta Fani is therefore rejected. " aggrieved by the order, the petitioner moved this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying (1) for Writ of mandamus directing respondents Nos. 3 and 6 respectively the Election Officer and the Returning Officer of the respondent Corporation, to forbear from giving effect to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper and to forbear from declaring respondent No. 8 as elected uncontested from Constituency No. 36. (2) for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing of the order deleting the petitioner's name from the final Electoral Roll and the order rejecting his nomination paper. (3) for a Writ of Prohibition directing respondent No. 6 the Returning Officer not to declare respondent No. 8 Shiv Kumar Khanna as elected uncontested from Constituency No. 36. Mr. P. K. Roy, learned Advocate for respondent No. 8 Shiv Kr. Khanna, very pertinently contended that the prayer for a Writ of Mandamus was not maintainable because there had been, at no point of time, any demand of justice made upon respondents Nos. 3 and 6. What is described as the demand for justice is annexed to the petition marked with 'a'. That is the same document which the petitioner filed before the respondent No. 6 Returning Officer in answer to the objection against his nomination. I have already set out the relevant extract from the said document. That objection is insufficient as the letter of demand in respect of the two mandates sought for by the petitioner and this is all the more so because there was no demand for justice addressed to the respondent No. 3, the Election Officer. So far as the prayer for prohibition is concerned, Mr. P. K. Roy submitted that the declaration if a candidate as elected uncontested takes place under the provisions of section 58 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, which reads as follows :- "If in a constituency there is only one duly nominated candidate who has not withdrawn his candidature, he shall be declared duly elected. " Mr. Roy contended that such declaration was an administrative action and cannot be restrained by a Writ of Prohibition. In my opinion, Mr. Roy is right in his contention. " Mr. Roy contended that such declaration was an administrative action and cannot be restrained by a Writ of Prohibition. In my opinion, Mr. Roy is right in his contention. I am, therefore, left with the petitioner's prayer for issue of a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing of the order of deletion of the petitioner's name from the Final Electoral Roll and the order rejecting his nomination paper. It is necessary for me to see, in the first place whether the name of the petitioner was omitted from the Final Electoral Roll in accordance with law. Sections 48 and 49 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, as they now stand amended, deal with qualification and disqualification of electors in the following language:- "48. A person who resided in a constituency and whose name is included in the Electoral Roll for the time being in force for election of members to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly from an area which includes that constituency shall be qualified to be an elector of that constituency. 49. . . (2) A person adjudged by a competent court to be of unsound mind shall not be qualified to be an elector of any constituency. (3) A person convicted of an offence under Chapter IXA, Indian Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment, or found in a proceeding under section 73 by the court to have committed a corrupt practice as specified in Part I, or in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Part II of Schedule II shall not be qualified to be an elector of any constituency for a period of five years from the date of conviction or finding, as the case may be: provided that the State Government may remove such disqualification if it thinks fit. " Sections 50 and 51 deal with the general conditions of registration and disqualification and removal of name from Electoral Roll, as hereinafter set out:- "50. (1) Every person shall be entitled to have his name registered in the Electoral Roll of a constituency if he has the qualifications specified in section 48 for an elector of that constituency and is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 49. 51. (1) Every person shall be entitled to have his name registered in the Electoral Roll of a constituency if he has the qualifications specified in section 48 for an elector of that constituency and is not subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 49. 51. If any person is subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 49, sub-section (2) of subsection (3), his name if on the electoral roll shall be omitted and shall not be registered till the disqualification ceases or is removed. " Section 52 deals with the preparation of the electoral roll and the relevant portion of the section is couched in the following language: -"52. (1) An electoral roll shall be prepared for every constituency on which shall be entered the names of the persons appearing to be entitled to be registered as electors for that constituency. It shall be published in the constituency together, with a notice specifying the mode in which and the time within which claims or objections are to be preferred to the revising authority. A person whose name is on the roll may object to the inclusion of the name of any other person on the roll or claim that his own name should be entered in the roll of a different constituency. A person whose name is not on the roll may claim to have his name entered therein and may thereafter object to the inclusion of the name of any other person in the roll. A person whose name is not on the roll may claim to have his name entered therein and may thereafter object to the inclusion of the name of any other person in the roll. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the State Government shall (a) the particulars to be contained in the roll; (b) the time at which the roll shall be prepared or revised under sub-section (5); (c) the manner and the language in which the roll shall be published so as to give it wide publicity in the constituency to which it relates ; (d) the mode in which and the time within which claims and objections may be preferred ; (e) the constitution and appointment of revising authorities to dispose of claims and objections ; (f) the manner in which notices of claims or objections shall be published; (g) the place, date and time at which and the manner in which claims or objections shall be heard; and may make such rule to provide for other matters incident or ancillary to the preparation, revision, publication and regular maintenance of the roll as it may consider desirable. (3) The orders made by the revising authority shall be final, and the electoral roll shall be amended in accordance therewith and shall, as so amended, be republished in such manner as the State Government may prescribe by rules. (4) The electoral roll shall come into force from the date of its republication under sub-section (3)and shall, subject to revision and further republication under subsection (5), remain in force for a period of (four) years from such date ; provided that the State Government may, if it thinks fit, extend the said period of four years by a period not exceeding one year by notification in the Official Gazette. (5 ). . (6 ). . (7) A fresh electoral roll shall be prepared as often as an earlier electoral roll ceases to be in force in time to take effect on such earlier roll ceasing to be in force and the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (6) shall apply to such fresh electoral roll. " section 52a deals with the authority by whom the Final Election Roll shall be prepared or revised. It is not disputed that respondent No. 4 is the authority under section 52a. " section 52a deals with the authority by whom the Final Election Roll shall be prepared or revised. It is not disputed that respondent No. 4 is the authority under section 52a. Section 54 provides for qualification for election as a Councilor in the following language:-"54. (1) No person shall be eligible for election as a Councilor to represent a constituency unless his name is registered on the electoral roll of that or of any other constituency. (2) No person shall be entitled to stand for election as a Councilor from more than one constituency. " Section 55 deals with general disqualifications for being a Councilor. I am not, however, concerned with that section because apart from lack of residential qualification, under section 48, no other disqualification has been alleged against the petitioner. 5. IN exercise of the powers under sub-section (2) of section 52 the State Government has framed a set of rules known as the Calcutta Municipal Electoral (Preparation and Publication and Revision and Republication of Electoral Rolls) Rules, 1952. Under Rule 2 (v) of the aforesaid rules, "the Registering Authority" means the authority appointed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette for preparation and publication under subsection (1) of section 52 of the Act and republication under sub-section (3) of that section of the electoral roll, or revision and republication of the electoral roll under sub-section (5) of section 52 of the Act. " Rules 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the said rules provide for preparation and publication of the Electoral Roll in the following language :-"7. The Registering Authority shall prepare or cause to be prepared a complete, electoral roll (hereinafter referred to as the preliminary electoral roll) of each constituency in English in Form II annexed to these rules. The roll shall contain the names of all persons who are qualified under the Act to be registered as electors of that constituency. In order to give it wide publicity the Registering Authority may, if he thinks fit, also prepare or publish or cause to be prepared or published a copy of the roll in Bengali or such other language or languages as he may consider necessary. 6. In order to give it wide publicity the Registering Authority may, if he thinks fit, also prepare or publish or cause to be prepared or published a copy of the roll in Bengali or such other language or languages as he may consider necessary. 6. THE Registering Authority may sub-divide the electoral roll of a constituency in such manner or into such parts as he may deem expedient for the purpose of expediting or facilitating the preparation of the roll. The names of electors registered in the roll or any part of the roll for a constituency shall, as far as practicable, be arranged in the same manner as in the electoral roll for election of Members to the west Bengal Legislative Assembly from an area which includes that constituency. 7. THE preliminary electoral roll, prepared as above for every constituency, shall be published by the Registering Authority in the manner following and in any other manner as he may think fit to give it wide publicity in the constituency by affixing for public inspection a complete copy of the roll at- (i) the office of the Registering Authority, (ii) the Central Municipal Office, (Hi) the Municipal District Office and such other Corporation Office or Offices as the Registering Authority may think fit, situated within the constituency concerned or within the jurisdiction, of which the constituency or any part of it may be situated. (iv) one or more of the police-station or stations situated within the constituency or within the jurisdiction of which the constituency or any part of it may be situated. (v ). . (vi) municipal markets situated within the constituency. " Rule 11 deals with the publication of the preliminary electoral roll but I am not concerned with that rule in this case. Rules 12, 14, 15 16 and 17 deals with claims both for inclusion in and exclusion from the preliminary electoral roll, from which I need set out rules 14 and 15. "14. (1) Any person having the qualifications of an elector for a constituency specified in section 48 of the Act and not being subject to any of the disqualifications specified in section 49 of the Act, may file a claim for being included in the electoral roll of a constituency if he is not already in the electoral roll of any constituency. Provided that a person who is already included in the electoral roll of a constituency may file a claim for his name being included in the electoral roll of a different constituency. (2) No person shall prefer an objection to the inclusion of any name in the electoral roll of a constituency unless his name is already included in the electoral roll of that constituency or unless he has filed a claim for being included in the said electoral roll. 15. (1) Claims and objections may be preferred in respect of the roll of any constituency within twenty-one days from the date of the publication of the roll under rule 10. Claims shall be made in Form III and objections in Form IV annexed to these rules. (2) All such claims and objections shall be addressed to the revising Authority and shall either be handed over or sent to the Registering Authority at his office. (3) The Revising Authority shall not entertain any claim or objection received by the Registering authority after 5 p. m. of the last date for filing claims and objections under sub-rule (1 ). " rules 18 to 25 deal with the procedure for dealing with such claims and objections, from which I need set out Rules 18, 19, 21 and 25. "18. Every person whose claim or objection is received in time shall be served with a notice by the Revising Authority specifying the place where and the time when his claim or objection will be heard, and he may produce or cause to be produced such evidence as he may wish to adduce, but in the absence of such evidence the Revising Authority shall decide the matter exercising his best judgment. 19. 19. When objection is made, by any person whose name is on the preliminary roll or who has filed a claim for being included in the electoral roll, to the inclusion of the name of any other person recorded therein, the Revising Authority shall serve on such other person a notice stating the grounds for such objection and specifying the place and the time fixed for the hearing of such objection, where and when such other person may attend with such evidence as he may wish to adduce: provided that if any objection shall appear to the Revising Authority to be frivolous or to have been made on irrelevant grounds he shall cause to be served on the person making the objection a notice calling upon him to appear and substantiate his objection either in person or by agent on a specified date, and in such a case no notice shall be served upon the other person until the Revising Authority is satisfied that the objection is well-founded, and if the person making the objection shall for any reason fail to appear and substantiate his objection, either in person or by agent on the specified date, the Revising Authority shall proceed as if no objection had been made. 21. (1) Every notice issued by the Revising Authority shall be in writing and shall be served at the address as entered in the preliminary roll or at such other address as may be specified by the claimant or objector in his notice of claim or objection, the person objected to being served only at the address given in the roll: provided that a notice may be served by the Revising Authority by sending it to the person concerned by post. (2) The notice to be issued to the person objected to shall be either posted seven days before the date fixed for hearing the objection or served three days before that date if served otherwise than by post. 25. (1) On the date fixed for the hearing or on such other date to which the hearing may be adjourned the Revising Authority shall hold a summary inquiry into the claims or objections preferred and shall record his orders either allowing or disallowing the claims or objections. 25. (1) On the date fixed for the hearing or on such other date to which the hearing may be adjourned the Revising Authority shall hold a summary inquiry into the claims or objections preferred and shall record his orders either allowing or disallowing the claims or objections. He shall also, after considering any verbal or written objections that may be preferred, decide on any application made by the Registering Authority for corrections to the roll under sub-rule (l) of rule 20. For the purpose of the enquiry the roll as published under rule 10 shall be presumed to be correct and complete until the contrary has been proved. No. party shall be represented by any legal practitioner at any proceeding under this Rule. (2) In the case where the Revising Authority allows claim of a person who is already included in the electoral roll of a constituency for his name being entered in the electoral roll of a different constituency, the Revising Authority shall also record an order for removal of his name from the electoral roll of the constituency in which his name was previously recorded," rule 26 deals with preparation and publication of final electoral roll in the following language :- "26. (1) The orders of the Revising Authority shall be communicated by him to the Registering authority who shall cause the roll to be amended in accordance therewith. The Revising Authority shall also direct correction of any clerical or printing errors which he may himself discover in the roll. (2) The electoral roll so amended shall be the final electoral roll and shall be republished in the manner specified in Rule 10, so, however, that if the general election is held in the year in which the fresh electoral roll is prepared under sub-section (7) of section 52 of the Act, the final electoral roll shall be so republished at least three weeks before the date fixed under sub-section (3) of section 71 of the Act for general election. " Bearing in mind the above provisions of law, I have to see if the ante of the petitioner, which admittedly appeared in the Preliminary Electoral Roll, was lawfully omitted there from and deleted from the Final Electoral Roll. 8. " Bearing in mind the above provisions of law, I have to see if the ante of the petitioner, which admittedly appeared in the Preliminary Electoral Roll, was lawfully omitted there from and deleted from the Final Electoral Roll. 8. IT appears from annexure 'p' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 4 the Registering Authority, that, on January 30, 1965, one Sukumar Ghose objected to the inclusion of the names of the petitioner and several others of his family in the electoral roll of constituency No. 11, on the ground that they had left their address and were not there for more than 21/2 years. On receipt of the objection, notice under rule 19 of the rules hereinbefore referred to was issued to the petitioner at the address of the petitioner appearing at the Preliminary Electoral Roll and was served on the petitioner by affixation. The services returned, which is annexure 'r' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 4, reads as follows : "The person left the premises. Served the notice by affixation in presence of witness Sri A. Dutta of the same premises who signed on the back of this counterpart. " Thereupon the Revising Authority caused further enquiry to be made and being satisfied that the petitioner had no residential qualification, under section 48 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, recorded the following order, on February 10, 1965 : "Seen the return of services of notice by Sri Mrinal Banerjee. Ref. : Local enquiry dt. 9. 2. 65. All persons dead and left except serial nos. 630 and 631 be excluded from roll and objections are allowed. " Consequent upon the order, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the electoral roll by an amendment under section 52 (3) of the Calcutta municipal Act, in the following manner:-"omitted the entries against serial nos. 1158 to 1160. (vide annexure 'x' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 6 ). The points taken on behalf of the petitioner against the deletion of his name from the finally published electoral roll are five in number :- (1) that the certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll, produced by respondent No. 8 before the Returning Officer, was "based on fabrication and forgery committed between 25th February 1965 and 3rd March, 1965. The points taken on behalf of the petitioner against the deletion of his name from the finally published electoral roll are five in number :- (1) that the certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll, produced by respondent No. 8 before the Returning Officer, was "based on fabrication and forgery committed between 25th February 1965 and 3rd March, 1965. " (2) that the petitioner had no notice, at any time, of any objection to the inclusion of his name in the electoral rolls for constituency no. 11 and was not aware of any such objection nor was he given any hearing or opportunity to show cause when his name was pretended to be deleted from the rolls of constituency No. 11. (3) that the petitioner's name being registered in the Legislative assembly Electoral Rolls for the time being in force for the area pertaining to the corporation constituency No. 11 and he being a resident of the area, the petitioner was entitled to be an elector for the said constituency No. 11 and his name could not be deleted from the electoral rolls of the said constituency. (4) that both before and after the publication of the Final Electoral Roll, the petitioner accompanied by one Sushil Kumar Ghose saw the Registering Authority and was assured by him that there had been no objection against the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Final Electoral Roll. (Sushil Kumar Ghose named above affirms a supplementary affidavit corroborating the statement of the petitioner in this respect ). (5) that the petitioner's name was on the Final Electoral Roll was borne out by the certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll obtained by him on February 25, 1965. At the time of the argument, Mr. Arun Prokash Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner, modified the first point to this extent that the deletion of the petitioner's name from the electoral roll not having had been made according to the rules was a fabrication to that extent. I have therefore to see whether the name of the petitioner, which was borne on the Preliminary Electoral Roll, was lawfully omitted from the Final Electoral Roll. I have no reason to doubt that there was an objection fed by one Sushil Kumar Ghose against inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Electoral Roll (annexure 'p' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 4 ). 9. I have no reason to doubt that there was an objection fed by one Sushil Kumar Ghose against inclusion of the petitioner's name in the Electoral Roll (annexure 'p' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 4 ). 9. I have further no reason to doubt that a notice under rule 19 of the rules hereinbefore referred to was addressed to the petitioner at Ms address as in the Preliminary Electoral Roll, that is to say, 38a, Nalin Sarkar Street. That notice was served by affixation, as the addressee was said to have left the premises and there was nobody to receive the notice on his behalf. The petitioner did not appear before the Revising Authority (on the date fixed by the notice. The Revising Authority, it appears from annexure 'r' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent No. 4, had, in the meantime, the truth of the objection verified by local enquiry, held on February 9, 1965. Being satisfied that the petitioner lacked the residential qualification, as in section 48 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, he directed exclusion of the petitioner's name (as also the names of certain other members of the petitioner's family) from the Final Electoral Roll. Except for a little doubt that I feel about the validity of the service of the notice upon the petitioner, to which I shall presently refer, I am of the opinion that the name of the petitioner was omitted from the Final Electoral Roll in accordance with the provisions of the statutory rules referred to above. The doubt about the validity of the service of the notice that I feel is this. Service of a notice, without more, is to be effected by delivering a copy thereof to the addressee or to his agent or to a member of his family or establishment and by obtaining an acknowledgment of service from such recipient. The Civil Procedure Code provides for two other alternative methods of service, namely, under Order 5, Rule 17 and Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code. The Civil Procedure Code provides for two other alternative methods of service, namely, under Order 5, Rule 17 and Order 5, Rule 20 of the Code. Under Order 5, Rule 17 service may be effected, without an order of the court, by affixing a copy of the notice on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the addressee of the notice ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and it is for the court to declare, after examination of the Serving Officer whether the notice was duly served. Under Order 5, Rule 20 service may be effected, after obtaining an order of the court, by affixing a copy of the notice in some conspicuous place in the court-house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house in which the addressee of the notice is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the court thinks fit. Service so effected is as effectual as if it had been made upon the addressee of the notice personally. There are statutes and statutory rules which have adopted either wholly or in part the methods of service of notice as in the Civil Procedure Code. Take for example, Rule 19 (2) of the registration of Electors Rules, 1960, framed under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which reads as follows: -"a notice under the rules may be given either personally or by registered post or by affixing it to the present residence or last known residence within the constituency. " rule 21 of the rules above referred to does not expressly authorise service by affixation. The Rule merely authorises service at the address entered in the Preliminary Electoral Roll, either by post or otherwise. The Rule does not contemplate the difficulty that may arise if personal service either by post or otherwise becomes impossible, either because the addressee is not found at the address or because he keeps himself out of service, although residing at the address. In this respect. Rule 21 is defective. In the present case, however, I need not make much of this doubt because the point in this form was not taken in grounds. In this respect. Rule 21 is defective. In the present case, however, I need not make much of this doubt because the point in this form was not taken in grounds. In ground (c) it is merely stated that the petitioner had no notice of the objection nor was he aware of the same (not that the notice served by affixation was not proper service upon him ). I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of this case, the notice was served in the best possible manner and nothing more could be done under the provisions of Rule 21. 10. MY finding recorded above also disposes of second point taken in this case, as indicated hereinbefore. If there was notice of the objection substantially served on the petitioner, then he cannot be heard to say that he was given no hearing or no opportunity to show cause against deletion of his name from the electoral roll. I now turn to the third point argued by Mr. Chatterjee. There is no dispute that the petitioner's name stands recorded in the West Bengal Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll. But that alone will not do. It has to be proved further, under section 48 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, that the petitioner resides in a constituency of Calcutta Corporation. In the Preliminary Electoral Roll, the address of the petitioner appears as No. 38a, Nalin Sarkar Street. In his nomination paper (Annexure 'w to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 6) the petitioner gave his address as 306, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, which address the petitioner sought to explain in paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply, as the business address of his wife, which business he looks after and also as his election camp address. In the petition before this Court, the petitioner gave his residential address as 9/4, Nalin Sarkar Street. This address, he did not disclose in his reply to the objection by respondent No. 8 before the Returning Officer. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner no doubt says that he disclosed his address before respondent No. 4, the Returning Officer. There Is, however, nothing in the scrutiny order of respondent No. 6 to show that this was so. Over and above all these, there is the document annexure 'x' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner no doubt says that he disclosed his address before respondent No. 4, the Returning Officer. There Is, however, nothing in the scrutiny order of respondent No. 6 to show that this was so. Over and above all these, there is the document annexure 'x' to the affidavit-in-opposition by respondent no. 6 (copy of the rationing card) which bears the endorsement by the wife of the petitioner himself to the effect:-"shifted from Calcutta area (38a, Nalin Sarkar Street) 21/2 years ago. " the address given in the Ration Card is A244, Bangur Avenue, admittedly within the jurisdiction of the South Dum Dum Municipality. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-reply the petitioner admits that he has a fiat at Bangur Avenue. He does not seek to explain the endorsement made by his wife on the ration card. In the face of this type of evidence, I am unable to hold that the respondents nos. 4 and 8 the Registering Authority and Revising Authority went wrong in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner lacked the residential qualification and in deleting the name of the petitioner from the Final Electoral Roll. Under Rule 25 of the Rules above referred to, the Final Electoral Roll carries with it a presumption of correctness and completeness. I hold that the petitioner has failed to rebut that presumption. The fourth point argued by Mr. Chatterjee may be shortly disposed of. Title petitioner's allegation that the respondent No. 4, the Registering Authority, assured the petitioner that his name was borne on the Final Electoral Roll and that nobody had objected thereto is denied by respondent no. 4 in paragraph 6 (a) of the affidavit-in-opposition. I am not in a position, regard being had to the limitations on the jurisdiction that I exercise, to decide that the petitioner's version is the true and correct version, in view of the denial by respondent no. 4 himself. After all this is a disputed question of fact, which I am unable to resolve for want of better evidence. 11. I now turn to the last argument advanced by Mr. Chatterjee. The certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll produced by the petitioner (first sheet of Ext. 'a') no doubt shows that the petitioner's name is borne on the roll. 11. I now turn to the last argument advanced by Mr. Chatterjee. The certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll produced by the petitioner (first sheet of Ext. 'a') no doubt shows that the petitioner's name is borne on the roll. It was argued on behalf of the respondents that what was produced by the petitioner was not a complete copy. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7, the Record Keeper, it is stated:- "With reference to paragraph 3 of the petition I say that all certified copies supplied after 20th February, 1965, in respect of serial nos. where there was correction deletion or amendment had to be and were supplied in two sheets the second sheet showing the correction or deletion, and when the petitioner wanted the certified copy of the entry of the electoral roll he had inspection of the same and he was supplied two sheets as stated above. " If that is so, the petitioner must be making too much of part of a certified copy produced by him. But before I part with this point, I have some observation to make. It was admitted, before this Court that the Final Electoral Roll was not a separately printed document. It is the Preliminary Electoral Roll with correction slips tagged thereto showing corrections, inclusions., omissions and deletions. This, to say the least, is clumsy. When a certified copy of the Final Electoral Roll is supplied, what is done appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 7. This is clumsier. What should have been done was to supply a certified copy, in one sheet, showing the corrected position and not to supply a copy of the uncorrected Roll in the first sheet and to tag thereto a copy of the correction slip. A wily person, getting hold of such a certified copy, may hold back the copy of the correction slip and. on production of the certified copy of the uncorrected Roll, may weave a pattern of sophistry which may be difficult to repel. Be that as it may, I am satisfied, from the other evidence produced before me, that the petitioner's name was omitted from the Final Electoral Roll and. 1, therefore, do not make much of the certified copy produced by the petitioner. 12. Be that as it may, I am satisfied, from the other evidence produced before me, that the petitioner's name was omitted from the Final Electoral Roll and. 1, therefore, do not make much of the certified copy produced by the petitioner. 12. NOW if the name of the petitioner was not borne on the Final Electoral Roll, he is not qualified to stand as a Councilor, under section 54 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, which I have already set out. The respondent no. 6, the Returning Officer, was therefore justified in rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to prove his case. I cannot therefore interfere with the order of the Returning Officer. The Rule is discharged with costs assessed at six gold mohurs. This amount may be divided equally by the contesting respondents. I make erne position clear. I have discharged this Rule because the petitioner's case has not been proved not that it has been disproved. Nothing contained in this judgment will preclude the petitioner from taking other steps against the uncontested election of respondent no. 8, if he has any and if not otherwise barred. All interim orders stand vacated.