ORDER This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by 15 residents of Sagolband Constituency in Imphal West which is one of the Assembly Constituencies of the Union Territory of Manipur against (1) the Election Commission of India, (2) the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, (3) the Electoral Registration Officer, Sagolband, Assembly Constituency No. 8, Manipur, (4) the Returning officer of the same constituency, (5) Shri B.K. Ganguly, "District Election Officer, Manipur", (6) Shri Salam Gambhir Singh, (7) Shri Moirangthem Meghachandra Singh, and (8) the Government of Manipur (Respondents 1 to 8). for a writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ appropriate to the circumstances of the case to quash the electoral roll of Sagolband Constituency and also to quash the election of the respondents 6 and 7 based on the impugned electoral roll and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 and 8 either to prepare a fresh electoral roll or to revise the same. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioners, who are citizens of India and residents of Sagolband Constituency, Imphal West, which is one of the Assembly Constituencies No. S, of the Union Territory of Manipur were electors, is. firstly, that they cast their votes in the last General Election held in 1962, that they also cast their votes in the last Gram Panchayat Election held in 1964, that for preparation and intensive revision of the electoral roll under Part II of the Registration of Electors Rules of 1960 (hereinafter called as the Rules of 1960), the respondents 4 and 5 appointed some enumerators under their orders even before they were duly appointed by the first respondent (Election Commission of India) and began to act and that, therefore, the electoral roll so prepared by the enumerators is invalid. Secondly, the petitioners, allege that during the preparation of the electoral roll no letter of request in form No. 4 prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules of 1960 was sent to the petitioners or to any elector in the Sagolband Constituency, that the offices of the respondents 3 and 5 were not within the said Constituency, that they failed to publish the draft electoral roll in the manner prescribed by Rule 10(b) and sub-rr. (a) and (b) of Rule 11 of the Rules of I960, that thus the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to submit objections to the draft electoral roll, that a number of dead persons and a number of persons, who were not actually living in the Constituency, were included in the draft roll and that, it is liable to be quashed. Thirdly, the petitioners allege in their petition that the first petitioner learnt on 13-10-1966 that his name was not mentioned in the draft electoral roll, that the first respondent (Election Commission of India) extended the date upto 15-10-1966 for sub mission of objections, that on 14-10-1966 he submitted claim in form No. 6 for inclusion of his name but that no list in duplicate in the prescribed form of the claims was maintained by the 3rd respondent or by am other officers, that on 1-10-1967 the first petitioner learnt that his name was not included in the electoral roll that thereafter he purchased the prescribed Form by applying to the 3rd respondent on payment of fifty paise and approached the third respondent on 11-1-1967 at about 2-30 P.M. and requested him to permit the first respondent to submit the application, but that the third respondent refused to take it, that the final list of electoral roll was published on 16-11-1966, that the election for the Assembly Constituency and the Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency was held on 15-2-1967, that then the petitioners learnt that their names were not found in the list of voters and that the respondents 6 and 7 were declared elected for the Sagolband. Assembly Constituency and the Inner Manipur Parliamentary Constituency respectively by the voters on the electoral roll prepared. Thus, the fundamental rights of the petitioners to cast their votes for the election or their respective candidates were affected. Hence, the petition. 3. The respondents 1 to 5 filed a joint counter while the respondents 6 to 8 filed separate counters, the allegations in which are substantially the same. They deny the petitioners allegations and urge firstly that the present writ petition is barred as the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies under the Representation of the People Act (Act 43 of 1950) (hereinafter called as the Act of 1950) and the Rules of 1960. They deny the petitioners allegations and urge firstly that the present writ petition is barred as the petitioners had adequate alternative remedies under the Representation of the People Act (Act 43 of 1950) (hereinafter called as the Act of 1950) and the Rules of 1960. Secondly, they plead that the presence of mistakes in the electoral roll is no ground for setting aside the election of the respondents 6 and 7. Thirdly, they contend that a joint writ petition by the first petitioner on one hand and the petitioners 2 to 15 on the other with different cases is not maintain able. Fourthly, they aver that no notices of demand for justice were issued by the petitioners before they filed the writ petition and that the petition for a writ of mandamus is not maintainable. Fifthly, they allege that the petitioners Bled the writ petition late and that they are not entitled to any relief on account of laches. Sixthly, they plead that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India and that, in any event, the petitioners should have filed an election petition. 4. Before dealing with the various objections raised by the respondents 1 to 8, the merits of the case of the petitioners have to be examined at first. As can be seen from Exts. A/1 and A/2 the petitioners, who are citizens of India and bona fide residents of Sagolband Constituency (Imphal West), which is one of the Assembly Constituencies to the Union Territory of Manipur, were included in the electoral roll as electors of the said Constituency in the General Election held in 1962. The petitioners also cast their votes in the Gram Panchayal election field in 1964. 5. For holding the last General Election of 1967 in Manipur Union Territory, the first respondent (Election Commission of India) directed 8th respondent (Union Territory of Manipur) to make intensive revision of the electoral rolls under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of 1950. The petitioners also cast their votes in the Gram Panchayal election field in 1964. 5. For holding the last General Election of 1967 in Manipur Union Territory, the first respondent (Election Commission of India) directed 8th respondent (Union Territory of Manipur) to make intensive revision of the electoral rolls under Rules 21 and 25 of the Rules of 1950. The first contention of the petitioners is that the 5th respondent Shri B.R. Ganguly was appointed as District Election Officer, Manipur, contrary to Section 13-AA of the Act of 1950 which lays down that the Election Commission shall, in consultation with the Government of the State, designate or nominate a District Election Officer for each district in a State, other than a Union Territory, who shall be an officer of Government and that, therefore, his appointment itself was invalid. The petitioners counsel also stated that he impleaded Shri. B.R. Ganguly by name for the above reason. He further argued that orders of appointment of enumerators issued vaguely by him as per Exts, A/5 to A/7 ma by the 4th respondent (even before his appointment) as per Exts. A/8 and A/9 were illegal. But, there were already District Election Officers, before Section 13-AA was inserted by the Central Act 47 of 1966 which came into force on 14-12-1966 as can be seen from Ext. B/15. Vide also commentary at page 160 of G.S.L. Srivastavas Law of Indian Elections, Vol. I, 1967 Edition, wherein the learned author prepared synopsis of the administrative machinery for the conduct of elections and wherein he mentioned the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer, the District Election Officer, the Returning Officer, the Assistant Returning Officers, the Presiding Officer and the Polling Officers. Also, it has to be noted that Sec. 13-AA of the Act of 1950, under which no District Election Officer could be appointed for a Union Territory, was inserted by the Central Amendment Act 47 of 1966 and it came into force on 14-12-1966. Before it was inserted the first respondent (Election Commission of India) issued a notification dated 24-8-1963 designating the District Election Officer, Manipur as the Electoral Registration Officer For all the Assembly Constituencies in the Union Territory of Manipur. This was published on 11-9-1963 in Manipur Gazette. Vide Ext. B/1. Before it was inserted the first respondent (Election Commission of India) issued a notification dated 24-8-1963 designating the District Election Officer, Manipur as the Electoral Registration Officer For all the Assembly Constituencies in the Union Territory of Manipur. This was published on 11-9-1963 in Manipur Gazette. Vide Ext. B/1. The first respondent (Election Commission of India) appointed the Sub-Divisional Officers and Sub-Deputy Collectors of Manipur as Electoral Registration Officers and Assistant Registration Officers by issuing notification as per Ext. B/2 dated 14-7-1966, which was published by the 8th respondent hi Ext. A/8 (Manipur Gazette dated 26-7-1966). Thus, Ext. B/1 shows that even in 1963 the designation of the District Election Officer, Manipur, was changed into "Chief Electoral Officer" and that, therefore, there was no "District Election Officer" as such in the Union Territory of Manipur. Under Sec. 15 of the General Clauses Act (Act 10 of 1897) an appointment can be made either by name or by virtue of office. The first respondent appointed the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, in its notification No. 154/19/65 dated 10-1-1966 in exercise of its powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 13-A of the Act of 1950. Ext. B/3 shows that the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur, issued letters to the Sub-Divisional Officers of Imphal East, Imphal West Thoubal, Bishenpur and Mao-Sadar Sub-Division, informing them that the electoral rolls of their sub-divisions were to be intensively revised from 1-2-1966 to 15-3-1966 with the help of the School teachers and other enumerators and that the enumerators would be paid certain honouraria as determined by the 8th respondent - Government of Manipur. So, the work of enumeration was done under the orders of the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur though instructions were given by the respondents 4 and 5 to the enumerators evidently under the orders of the Chief Electoral Officer. Under Section 29 of the Act of 1950, the local authorities are hound, when requested by the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, to make available to any Electoral Registration Officer, such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. So evidently the respondents 4 and 5 acted in pursuance of the order of the Chief Electoral Officer. So evidently the respondents 4 and 5 acted in pursuance of the order of the Chief Electoral Officer. Manipur Even if it is held that they acted before they were duly appointed, the Chief Electoral Officer, Manipur must be deemed to have ratified their action by issuing an order as per Ext. B/3 dated 29-1-1966. As such, the preparation of the electoral roll cannot be questioned and is valid. 6. The second contention of the petitioners is that inasmuch as the intensive preparation of the electoral roll was ordered by the Chief Electoral Officer, as evidenced by Ext. B/3, the rules, which were applicable, were Rules 4 to 29 of the Rules of 1960 as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 55 of the said Rules. The contention of the petitioners is, firstly, that no letters of request in form No 4 were issued to the occupants of the dwelling houses in the Constituency as required by Rule 8. Their second contention is that the draft electoral roll was not published as required by Rr. 10 and 11 of the said Rules, that, therefore, the petitioners did not know that then names were not included in the draft electoral roll and that thus they were deprived of lodging claims for inclusion of then names under Rules 12, 13 and 14 of the said Rules. To appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to reproduce the Rules 8, 10 and 11 which are as follow : "8. Information to be supplied by occupants of dwelling houses. The registration officer may, for me purpose of preparing the roll, send letters of request in Form 4 to the occupants of dwelling houses in the constituency or any part thereof; and every person receiving any such letter shall furnish the information called for therein to the best of his ability. xx xx xx xx" 10. Publication of roll in draft. As soon as the roll for a constituency is ready, the registration officer shall publish it in draft by making a copy thereof available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form 5 : (a) at his office, if it is within the constituency, and (b) at such place in the constituency as may be specified by him for the purpose, if his office is outside the constituency. 11. Further publicity to the roll and notice. 11. Further publicity to the roll and notice. The registration officer shall also - (a) make a copy of each separate part of the roll, together with a copy of the notice in Form 5 available for inspection at a specified place accessible to the public and in or near the area to which that part relates; (b) give such further publicity to the notice in Form 5 as he may consider necessary; and (c) supply free of cost two copies of each separate part of the roll to every political party for which a symbol has been exclusively reserved in the State by the Election Commission." The word used in Rule 8 is "may" and not "shall". So a plain reading of Rule 8 shows that the provision of Rule 8 that letters of request in form 4 should be sent to the occupants of dwelling houses is not mandatory. The respondents 1 to 5 and 8 admit that no such letters of request were sent to die occupants of dwelling houses and they cannot be said to have violated the provision of Rule 8. So far as Rule 10 is concerned, the word used is "shall" and it directs that the draft roll shall he made available for inspection and that a notice in form 5 should be displayed by the Registration Officer, firstly in his Office, if it is within the Constituency in question and secondly, at such place in the Constituency which may be specified by hint for the purpose, it his office is outside the Constituency Admittedly, the office of the Registration Officer was not in the Sagolband Constituency in question. But, it is said to be in another Constituency. So, according to Rule 10(b) the Registration Officer should have made the electoral roll available for inspection in some place in the Sagolband Constituency itself and displayed at that place Appellant notice in form 5. The respondents 1 to 5 and 8 admit that the draft roll and notice in form 5 were not displayed in any place in the Constituency itself. Vide also Ext. A/10. But, they allege that they were displayed in Churachand High School, which is near the Sagolband Constituency, but not within the Constituency. So, they admit that they did not comply with Rule 10(b) of the Rules. Vide also Ext. A/10. But, they allege that they were displayed in Churachand High School, which is near the Sagolband Constituency, but not within the Constituency. So, they admit that they did not comply with Rule 10(b) of the Rules. Though the petitioners allege that R. 11 of Rules 1960 also was not complied with, their contention is not correct. For, a copy of the Rules together with a copy of the notice in form 5 was made available in Churachand High School near the Constituency in question under sub-rule (a). Under sub-rule (b) the Registration Officer publish ed the roll in Manipur Gazette Under sub rule (c) he supplied free of cost two copies of each separate part of the roll to every political party for which a symbol had been exclusively reserved in the State by the Election Commission. Thus, the Registration Officer complied with Sub-Sections (a) to (c) of Rule 11, which are also mandatory be cause the word used is "shall". 7. The petitioners learned counsel con tended that though the word "may is used in Rule 8, it must be construed as "shall", as non-compliance of Rule 8 infringes the rights of franchise of the electors, by keeping them in the dark about the preparation of the electoral roll. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, is that the word "may in Rule 8 is only directory and not obligatory and that the word "shall in Rule 10 is also directory and not obligatory. Their contention is two-fold. Firstly/ they urge that under Rule 11 further publication of the electoral roll had also to be made and that therefore, the publication of the draft roll under Rule 10 was redundant and merely directory. Their second contention is that no penal provision was made for non-compliance with Rule 10 and that therefore the word shall in Rule 10 should not be construed as mandatory. They relied on pages 198, 199, 204, 205, 206 and 207 of the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh, 1966 Edition and also page 239 of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition, wherein there is discussion about the construction of statutes which impose public duty to be done by officials. They relied on pages 198, 199, 204, 205, 206 and 207 of the Principles of Statutory Interpretation by G.P. Singh, 1966 Edition and also page 239 of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes 10th Edition, wherein there is discussion about the construction of statutes which impose public duty to be done by officials. The learned author Shri G.P. Singh states that where a statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner in which and the time within which the duty shall be per formed, injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescriptions may be a relevant factor in holding such prescriptions only directory. The counsel for the respondents also re lied upon a number of decisions reported in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 , Mohammad Umair v. Ram Charan Singh. AIR 1954 Pat 225 , Jagan Nath v Jaswant Singh, MR 1954 SC 210, Ran Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233 , Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta, AIR 1956 SC 140 , State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912 , Ramaswamy v. B.M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1963 SC 458 and Atma Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 Raj 239 (FB), wherein it was held that substantial compliance with a mandatory provision is sufficient compliance thereof. In Subbarao v. Member Election Tribunal, Hyderabad, AIR 1964 SC 1027 , the Supreme Court held that the word "shall" in S. 81 of the Representation of People Act of 1951, should be construed as "may" in the context. The Court had to consider a technical objection to an Election Petition filed under Sec. 81 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 for non-compliance with the requirement of Section 81(3) of the said Act. The Court held that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 81(3) of the said Act and that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 81(3) of the Act. 8. In the present case, the word "may" in Rule 8 should be construed as "may" only, because it is well-high impossible for the Registration Officer to send letters of request in form 4 to the occupants of each and every dwelling house in the Constituency. 8. In the present case, the word "may" in Rule 8 should be construed as "may" only, because it is well-high impossible for the Registration Officer to send letters of request in form 4 to the occupants of each and every dwelling house in the Constituency. So, it was left to his discretion whether he should issue letters of request to them in form 4 or not. The provision is only directory and not mandatory and the word "may" cannot be construed as "shall" as contended by the petitioners counsel. So far as the contention of the respondents counsel that the word "shall" in Rule 10 should be construed as "may" is concerned, it has no force. For, Rules 10 and 11 contemplate the publication of the draft roll in two ways. Under Rule 10 the draft roll should be published and made available for inspection by the residents of the Constituency in the office of the Registration Officer, provided it is within the Constituency But, if it is outside the Constituency then it is necessary that the persons living in the Constituency must know whether the draft roll contains their names or not so, it was made mandatory that the draft roll must be available for inspection at a place in the Constituency itself. By way of abundant caution Rule 11 enjoins on the Registration Officer to make further publication of the draft electoral roll in the manner provided therein inasmuch as. Rule 10 provides for publication of the roll at a place in the Constituency itself. Rule 11 provides that the publication should be made at Appellant place near the Constituency and in some other manner us laid down therein. As such, while Rule 10 relates to publication of the draft roll within the Constituency, Rule 11 lays down its publication outside the Constituency and also in such other manner as considered necessary and by supplying free of cost copies of the electoral roll to every recognised political part as mentioned in Rule 11(c). As such, the first contention of the respondents counsel that as Rule 11 contains provision for a further publication. Rule 10 is only directory is not tenable. As such, the first contention of the respondents counsel that as Rule 11 contains provision for a further publication. Rule 10 is only directory is not tenable. Even, the second contention that the word shall" in Rule 10 is only directory and not mandatory, because the Rules do not provide for any penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of R. 10 is also without force. For, R. 10 was framed to safeguard the rights of franchise of the residents of the Constituency. The right of franchise, which is created by Section 19 of the Act of 1950 is a statutory right. As such, the word shall in Rule 10 is mandatory. But, however, the respondents 1 to 5 and 8 substantially complied with the said Rule by preparing a draft roll and fully complied with Rule 11 by publishing It in the manner prescribed by Rule 11. In view of the rulings, especially of the Supreme Court, relied on by the respondents, substantial compliance with Rule 10 cannot vitiate the election of respondents 6 and 7. (In paragraph 9 of the judgement die Court refused to enquire into the disputed question of fact if on 13-10-1966 and on 1-1-1967 the first petitioner filed claim petitions under Rules 13 and 14 of 1960 Rules. It did not, therefore, uphold his contention. Judgement then proceeds.) 10. Thus the names of the petitioners were not mentioned to the draft electoral roll, which was finally published on 16-11-1966, as per Ext. B/8, Also, the electoral roll contains the names of 43 dead persons and the names of 56 persons who shifted to other places. As such, the electoral roll contains 99 names of non-existing persons and does not include the names of the 15 petitioners. So, the question is whether the petitioners had any other remedy under the Act of 1950 or the Rules, of 1960. This leads to the first objection raised by the respondents to the maintainability of the writ petition. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1960 lays down that every claim for the inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry shall be lodged within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the roll in draft under Rule 10, unless the time is extended by the Election Commission. Rule 12 of the Rules of 1960 lays down that every claim for the inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry shall be lodged within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the roll in draft under Rule 10, unless the time is extended by the Election Commission. Rule 13 lays down the form in which the claims and objections should be filed. Rule 14 lays down the manner in which the claims and objections should be filed. Rule 16 ordains that the Registration Officer should maintain in duplicate three lists in Forms 9 to 11, entering therein the particulars of every claim or objection, etc. Rule 17 relates to rejection of certain claims and objections Rule 18 relates to their acceptance without enquiry. Rules 19 and 20 relate to enquiries to be made by the Registration Officer regarding the claims and objections. Rule 21 relates to inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. Rule 22 lays down the final publication of the roll. Rule 23 gives a right to appeal against the decision of the Registration Officer to such officers of the Government as the first respondent (Election Commission) may designate in that behalf. Thus, the Rules of 1960 provide for a machinery for inclusion of names and for disposal of objections to entries in the draft electoral roll. But, the petitioners did not avail of this remedy. The case of die first petitioner is different from that of the petitioners 2 to 15 in this regard. According to the first petitioner, he learnt even on 13-10-1966 that his name was not mentioned in the electoral roll and he pursued his remedy under the rules. But according to the petitioners 2 to 15, they did not know that their names were not included until they actually went to the polling station on 15-2-1967 to cast their votes. The political parties and the candidates were supplied with free copies of the electoral roll and knew whose names were included and whose names were not included in the draft electoral roll, inasmuch as the copies of the same were given to the political parties under sub-rule (c) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1960. The political parties and the candidates were supplied with free copies of the electoral roll and knew whose names were included and whose names were not included in the draft electoral roll, inasmuch as the copies of the same were given to the political parties under sub-rule (c) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1960. Inasmuch as they and the first petitioner knew at least that the first petitioners name was not mentioned in the electoral roll, it is difficult to believe that the petitioners 2 to 15 were not aware that their names were not included in the electoral roll until they actually went to the polling station on 17-2-1967 to cast their votes. The candidates have approached the petitioners for their votes and would have told them that their names were not found in the electoral roll. In as much as the right of franchise is created by Sec. 19 of the Act of 1950 and Sec. 62 of the Representation of the People Act of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act of 1951), a duty was also cast on the petitioners 2 to" 15 to make an enquiry whether their names were included in the electoral roll or not. But, they did not discharge their own duty. Again, it has to be noted that independent of the rules, the petitioners had another remedy under Sections 22 to 25 of the Act of 1950 Section 22 gives powers to the Electoral Registration Officer of a constituency to correct any entry in the electoral roll suo motu or on application made to him. Section 23 empowers the Registration Officer to include the name of any person in an electoral roll whose name is not included. Under Section 24, an appeal lies to the Chief Electoral Officer against any order of the Electoral Registration Officer passed under S. 22 or S. 23 of the Act of 1950. Section 25 lays down the fee which has to be paid for an application under S. 22 or S. 28 and for an appeal under Section 24. The Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules of 1960 relate to the said sections. So, the petitioners could have filed application before the Electoral Registration Officer for inclusion of their names under Section 23 of the Act of 1950. The Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules of 1960 relate to the said sections. So, the petitioners could have filed application before the Electoral Registration Officer for inclusion of their names under Section 23 of the Act of 1950. They could have filed another application for deletion of the names of the dead persons and those who shifted from the constituency under Section 22 of the Act of 1950. Section 30 of the said Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency, etc. As such, the petitioners had alternative elective remedies under the Act of 1950 and Rules, 1960, framed thereunder and should have pursued them. 11. The contention of the petitioners counsel on the above aspect of the case is firstly, that they had no remedy at all and, secondly, that even if they had remedy, any alternative remedy, it is no bar to the institution of the writ petition. Regarding his first contention that the petitioners had no alternative remedy, it is already shown that they had alternative remedy under Rules 12 to 20 and under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1960, as well as under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act of 1980. Regarding the second contention that the existence of alternative remedy is no bar to the maintainability of a petition for writ under Articles 226 and 227 of She Constitution of India, he relied on State of U.P. v. Mohammad Nooh. AIR 1958 SC 86 , relating to a departmental enquiry and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 372 , Krishna Coconut and Co., Ambajipeta v. Commercial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, AIR 1966 Andh Pra 128, M.G. Additional Collector, Customs, Bombay v. Shantilal Chhotelal fit Co. AIR 1966 SC 197 and Income-tax Officer, Salem v. Short Brothers (P.) Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 81 , relating to taxation laws. The principle on which a writ petition with reference to taxation laws is entertained is that though the High Court has discretion to issue writs in spite of the existence of an alternative remedy, the latter does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it the alternative remedy is not effective and imposes onerous conditions on the petitioner. The principle on which a writ petition with reference to taxation laws is entertained is that though the High Court has discretion to issue writs in spite of the existence of an alternative remedy, the latter does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court, it the alternative remedy is not effective and imposes onerous conditions on the petitioner. In spite of the existence of an alternative remedy, the High Court can entertain a petition for writ depending on the circumstances of the case. The petitioners counsel also relied on Parkasho v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 All 151 , relating to a murder case in support of his contention that the expression "any other purpose" in Article 226 of the Constitution is wide enough to include "any other ordinary legal rights, interests or privileges or for the prevention of legal wrong or injury". It is clear that these rulings have no application to this case, inasmuch as the, petitioners had sufficient and adequate remedies before the electoral roll was finalised. No doubt, the respondents counsel sought to base their argument on another ground that the right to get registered as A voter under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 is quite different from the right to vote under Section 62 of the Act of 1951, that the petitioners were not registered as voters, that unless they are registered as voters, they have no right to maintain any writ petition and that the existence of a right and its infringement are the foundation for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They relied on Polaki Kotesam v. S.M. Patnaik, AIR. 1954 Orissa 87, Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183 ; State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash, AIR 1963 SC 507 ; and Venkata Subbayya v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIRJ 1965 Andh Pra 425. Failure on the part of the Returning Officer to publish the electoral roll in the marine prescribed by Rule 10(b) of the Rules of 1960, as already pointed out, affected the statutory right on the petitioners under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 and they could file a writ petition, if it is otherwise maintainable. 12. Failure on the part of the Returning Officer to publish the electoral roll in the marine prescribed by Rule 10(b) of the Rules of 1960, as already pointed out, affected the statutory right on the petitioners under Section 19 of the Act of 1950 and they could file a writ petition, if it is otherwise maintainable. 12. The second contention of the respondents" counsel that the respondents 6 and 7 who had no hand in the preparation of the electoral roll cannot be made to suffer merely because the names of some persons qualified to vote were not entered in the electoral roll and that some mistakes in the electoral roll are bound to occur in the preparation of the electoral rolls for several constituencies in a wide country like India, is also a sound one. Vide also Bhawani Prasad Tiwari v. Jagdish Narayan, (1958) 16 Ele LH 143 (MP) and AIR 1954 Orissa 87. (It was then held that the several mistakes which had crept into the electoral rolls prepared did not materially affect the result of election of respondents 6 and 7. The judgement then proceeds :) 13. The third contention of the respondents is that a joint writ petition by all the petitioners is not maintainable, inasmuch as the case of the first petitioner is different from the case of the petitioners 2 to 15. It has already been mentioned that their cases are different. According to the first petitioner he pursued his remedies under the Rules of 1960 as well as Section 23 of the Act of 1950, but he did not get any relief. According to the other petitioners 2 to 15, they had no knowledge of the preparation of the draft electoral roll. In such a case, a joint petition is not maintainable. Vide Uma Shankar Rai v. Divisional Superintendent. Northern Railway, Lucknow, MR i960 All 366; Kailash Chandra v. Dist. Registrar, Registration Department, Agra, AIR 1961 AH 61; and Aribam Pishak Sharma v. Aribam Tuleswar Sharma, Civil Review Case No. 2 of 1965 on the file of this Court 1967 Manipur LJ 752 : ( AIR 1968 Manipur 74 ), disposed of by me. Northern Railway, Lucknow, MR i960 All 366; Kailash Chandra v. Dist. Registrar, Registration Department, Agra, AIR 1961 AH 61; and Aribam Pishak Sharma v. Aribam Tuleswar Sharma, Civil Review Case No. 2 of 1965 on the file of this Court 1967 Manipur LJ 752 : ( AIR 1968 Manipur 74 ), disposed of by me. As against these decisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Nathmal v. Commissioner, Civil Supplies, Rajasthan, AIR 1952 Raj 74 and Chandra Kishore v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1963 All 301 , wherein it was held that the defect is a curable one and that more than one person can maintain a writ petition provided they have got the same right. The petitioners counsel drew my attention to a case disposed of by me in Manalal Jain v. Municipal Board of Imphal, Civil Writ Appln. No, 3 of 1966 : 1967 Manipur LT 349, wherein I held that the petitioners could maintain the writ petition as they had a common case against the respondents and that even if the petition by all the petitioners was not maintainable, still the fourth petitioner in that case, whose rights were directly affected, could maintain the petition. But, in the present case, though the petitioners have a common contention regarding violation of Rule 10(b) of the Rules of 1960, their cases and grievances are different. The grievance of the first petitioner is that even though he filed claim petitions to include his name in the electoral roll, they were rejected. The grievance of the other petitioners is that they had no knowledge of the publication of the draft electoral roll and that their names were not included in it. So, the joint petition by all the petitioners is not maintainable. 14. The fourth contention of the respondents is that no notice of demand of justice was issued by the petitioners before filing the present writ petition and that the writ petition for the issue of mandamus is not maintainable. They relied on Harendranath Sharma v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1950 Madh Bha 46, which supports their contention. For this reason also, the writ petition for mandamus is not maintainable. 15. Fifthly, the respondents contend that the petitioners are guilty of laches in filing the writ petition that the draft electoral roll was prepared on 31-8-1966, as can be seen from Ext. For this reason also, the writ petition for mandamus is not maintainable. 15. Fifthly, the respondents contend that the petitioners are guilty of laches in filing the writ petition that the draft electoral roll was prepared on 31-8-1966, as can be seen from Ext. A/10, that the electoral roll was completed in November. 1966 and published as per Ext B/14 on 16-11- 1966, that the election took place on 15-2-1967, that the sixth respondent was declared elected on 18-2-1987, that the seventh respondent was declared elected on 4-3 1967, but that the present writ petition was filed on 15-5-1967, that the petitioners are thus guilty of laches, that the entire election should not be affected by putting the Government to heavy expenditure and by putting the people in general to inconvenience, that no discretion should be exercised by the Court in favour of the petitioners by issuing some writ, that the present writ petition must have been filed at the instigation of the defeated candidates and that it was not filed bona fide. They relied on AIR 1954 Orissa 87 : 8 Ele LR 159. No doubt, there is no period of limitation prescribed for the institution of a writ petition and even six months time is allowed as can be seen from Eluru Venkata Subba Rao v. District Transportation Superintendent, Vijayawada, Southern Rly., AIR 1958 Andh Pra 206. But, the petitioners had no justification in filing the writ petition on 15-5-1967. The first petitioner knew on 13-10-1966 and 11-1-1967 that his name was not included in the electoral roll. Then he should have taken immediate steps and filed the present writ petition, if he thought that his remedy was by way of writ instead of waiting till 15-5-1967 till the elections were over and the results were declared. The other petitioners 2 to 15 allege that they came to know on 15-2-1967, the date of the poll, that their names were not included in the electoral roll. Then, they should have rushed to the Court either on that day or within a reasonable time thereafter and filed the writ petition, if they thought that the writ petition is their remedy. Then, they should have rushed to the Court either on that day or within a reasonable time thereafter and filed the writ petition, if they thought that the writ petition is their remedy. The result of the seventh respondents election was declared on 4-3-1967 and the petitioners had ample time before that date to file writ petition and they waited for about three months after the elections were over and filed the writ petition. It is evident that they must have filed it at the instance of the defeated candidates by circumventing the provisions of Section 82 of the Act of 1951 without filing an election petition. 16. Lastly, there is an insurmountable obstacle in the maintainability of the present writ petition. Part XV of the Constitution of India relates to the provisions made regarding elections. It contains Articles 324 to 329. Under Article 324, the superintendence, direction and control of election are vested with the first respondent (Election Commission), the members of which are appointed by the President. Article 325 lays down that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in or to claim to be included in, an electoral roll on the grounds of religion, race, caste or sex. Article 326 states that the elections to the House of the People and of the Legislative Assemble of States should be on the basis of adult suffrage. Article 327 gives power to the Parliament to make provision regarding the election to Legislature. Article 328 as power to the Legislature of a State to make provision regarding the election to such Legislature. Article 329 it the relevant article for the purpose of the present writ petition. It runs as follows :- "329. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution - (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328, shall not be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition pre seated to such authority and in such man tier as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. Thus, Article 329(b) is a complete bar to interference by Courts in election to the House of Parliament or Legislature of a State except through an election petition filed before the competent Court in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. The Act of 1950, providing for preparation of electoral rolls for election either to the House of Parliament or Legislature of a State, is in accordance with Article 327. Part VI of the Act of 1951 regarding election disputes, including Secs. 80, 81 and 82 is in accordance with Article 329 of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 80 of the Act of 1951 that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the High Court reproduces Article 329 of the Constitution of India. Vide also p. 188 of Supreme Court on Election Law by B.A. Masodkar, 1967 Edn. The leading case is that of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 , where the scope of Article 329 of the Constitution of India was fully explained. It was laid down that Part XV of the Constitution is a code by itself regarding the election law relating to the election to the Parliament and the State Legislatures, that it creates rights and provides for their enforcement by a special tribunal to the exclusion of all Courts, that only one remedy is provided, that remedy being by an election petition and that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special remedy for enforcing it the remedy provided by mat statute only must be availed of. It was also laid down that the word "election" in Part XV of the Constitution has been used in a very wide sense, that is to say, that it connotes the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the Legislature. So, the election within the meaning of Part XV of the Constitution of India commences as soon as the notification is issued that polls would be held. This decision was followed in a number of decisions. So, the election within the meaning of Part XV of the Constitution of India commences as soon as the notification is issued that polls would be held. This decision was followed in a number of decisions. Vide AIR 1954 Orissa 87, AIR 1955 SC 233 , Chenchurama Naidu v. Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra State, AIR 1955 Andhra 180; Tekchand v. Banwarilal, AIR 1956 Raj 185 ; Milakhraj v. Jagdish Chandra, AIR 1957 Raj 293 (wherein the above case of Rajasthan High Court was referred to with approval), and Promode Lal Moitra v. Additional District Magistrate, 24 Parganas, AIR 1957 Cal 164 . Vide also AIR 1964 SC 1027 . 17. Thus, the writ is misconceived. If at all, the petitioners must have filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Act of 1951 attacking the election of the respondents 6 and 7 on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Acts and the Rules. But, with regard to this aspect of the case, the contention of the petitioners counsel is three-fold. His first contention is that "election" within the meaning of Article 329(b) commences after a nomination paper is filed and ends with the declaration of the result, but that in the present case the petitioners are attacking the proceedings which took place before the nomination papers were filed and that therefore, Article 329(b) does not apply to this case. He relied on Shankar Rao Ramaji v. State of Madhya Bharat. AIR 1952 Madh Bha 97. Haripada Dutt v. Ananta Mandal, AIR 1952 Cal 526 ; Paras Ram Nikoo Ram v. Nigahi Bux Shadi Ram. AIR 1954 Pepsu 58; Tirath Singh Narain Singh v. Bachitar Singh Mit Singh. AIR 1954 Pepsu 118, AIR 1954 Ori 87 ; and Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co., Ltd., Nagpur, AIR 1958 Bom 498 . A study of these decisions shows that, except in AIR 1954 Ori 87 and AIR 1954 Pepsu 118, the other decisions did not refer to AIR 1952 SC 64 already referred to. Some of the above decisions do not refer to election cases. A study of these decisions shows that, except in AIR 1954 Ori 87 and AIR 1954 Pepsu 118, the other decisions did not refer to AIR 1952 SC 64 already referred to. Some of the above decisions do not refer to election cases. Those decisions, which took a view contrary to that of the Supreme Court, which held that the word "election" has a wide connotation and that it includes the proceedings which take place after a notification is issued that the election would be held, cannot be said to have laid down the correct law. Necessarily the electoral roll is prepared after such Appellant notification is issued. The second contention of the petitioners counsel is that Article 329(b) of the Constitution applies to election to the House of the Legislature of a "State", that Manipur Union Territory is not "State", that Union Territories were created under Part VIII of the Constitution of India, which contains Articles 239, 239(A), 240 and 241, that they are also governed by the Government of Union Territories Act of 1963 and that, therefore. Article 329(b) does not apply. This interpretation is entirely wrong. For, under Section 3(58)(b) of the General Clauses Act, the word "State" was substituted by the Adaptation Order 1 of 1956. It defines the word State" as including Union Territory in the First Schedule to the Constitution after the commencement of the Seventh Amendment. Besides, Section 2(b) of the Act of 1950 defines Assembly Constituency as a constituency provided by law for the purpose of election to the Legislative Assembly of a State and Sub-Section (1) of Section 2 of the same Act defines "State" as including a Union Territory. It is, therefore, crystal-clear that Article 329(b) applies to election to the Legislative Assembly of a Union Territory also. The third contention of the petitioners learned counsel is that even if Article 329(b) is applicable, still it is not barred and that in the cases cited by him the electoral rolls in certain municipal elections prepared on the basis of the rules analogous to the Rules of 1960 were set aside on the ground that they were incorrectly prepared He relied on Amulya Ratan Karmakar v. Commissioner of Basirhat Municipality. AIR 1959 Cal 548 ; Bishwanath Prasad v. Ramji Prasad Sinha, AIR 1964 Pat 459 ; AIR 1963 SC 458 ; Kanchanbhai Mangalbhai v. Manaklal Maganlal Gandhi, AIR 1966 Guj 19 ; Chinna Malla Reddi v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur, (1954) 9 Ele LR 361 (Mad); and Chief Commissioner, Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, 12 Ele LR 443 : ( AIR 1957 SC 304 ). All these decisions relate to municipal or panchayat elections in cities. These rulings, with reference to the municipal elections or panchayat elections arc inapplicable to the elections to the State Legislature and to the Parliament inasmuch as the latter are governed by special Acts of 1950 and 1951 and the rules framed therein. Special remedies are provided in the said Acts and rules and they have got to be followed, as laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SC 64 already referred to. 18. In the result, the petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. Pleaders fee Rs. 100 one set. Petition dismissed.