SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, J. ( 1 ) ON 23rd February, 1982 at about 4. 08 P. M. on my rising from the Court, the Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court placed before me the following communications: - message received from Mr. Subba Rao, Registrar (Judicial), Supreme Court of India at 3. 40 P. M. over 'phone'. Writ petition challenging the announcement of final Electoral Roll on March, 1982 filed by Mr. A. K. M. Hassamanuzaman and Ors. the Supreme Court requests the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court to request the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji to take up the above writ petition at 10. 30 A. M. on 24th February, 1982. He shall not allow any request for adjournment in respect of this matter and complete hearing before Thursday evening and pass orders immediately either reasoned order or the result. If a reasoned order is made, a plain copy may be handed over to the Counsel for being produced before Supreme Court on Friday morning and the Special Leave Petition filed in this matter before the Supreme Court challenging the order dated 12 will be taken up on Friday for further hearing. Sd/- K. Mukherjee, registrar, A. S. 23. 2. 82? ( 2 ) I direct that that the original be kept on the record of this matter. At above 8 P. M. on that day, I was communicated at my residence the following: - we heard this matter for some few hours, Mr. Venugoal for petitioners and Dr. Chitale for Election Commission concluded their arguments. Mr. S. S. Ray, learned Counsel for the respondents who are some of the original petitioners and also some of the respondents, was being heard, when we found that after Rule Nisi was issued by the learned Judge and ex parte ad interim stay was granted, on the motion made by the parties represented by Mr. Venugopal they were added and they requested by an application to vacate the interim stay and the learned Judge proceeded to hear the matter as to whether the stay should be confirmed or vacated or what interim order is necessary till the disposal of the petition. We were informed that this hearing proceeded upto some time when the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and authorities under the Election Commission was asked about some documents. We were informed that this hearing proceeded upto some time when the learned Advocate General, who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and authorities under the Election Commission was asked about some documents. The Court called for some documents from the Election Commission and the learned Advocate General promised to enquire whether he would be able to produce the documents. At that stage the learned Judge adjourned the matter to Thursday i. e. , on 25. 2. 82 for further hearing of the matter. Thereafter the present petition was moved for obtaining Special Leave under Article 136 against the ex parte interim stay order and also against the order dated February 19, 1982. In view of the fact that the learned Judge is seized of the matter and more or so in view of the fact that this Court would be loathe to interfere, particularly when the matter is part heard before the Court and in view of the comity amongst judicial functionaries we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial process, that the learned Judge should complete the hearing going on before him. We are, however, keen that this hearing and the order consequent upon the hearing must be pronounced latest on 25. 2. 1982 and the learned Judge completes the hearing and pronounces and order on that day. It is requested that the writ petition should be placed on Board of the learned Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji) on Wednesday, 24th February, 1982 and shall be heard and hearing completed and order pronounced before the expiry of Thursday, 25th February, 1982. If a reasoned order is made even an uncertified copy or the minutes of the order signed by the learned Judge may be produced before this Court. This matter stands adjourned to Friday, February 25, 1982 to be placed on Board at 10. 30 A. M. The learned Judge should proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by any parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. COURT MASTER. 30 A. M. The learned Judge should proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by any parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. COURT MASTER. Supreme Court also directed that besides communication from Registrar of Supreme Court to Registrar of Calcutta High Court regarding above direction should be communicated to High Court through Telex to Chief Electoral Officer of West Bengal from Election Commission for purpose of bringing contents of above direction to notice of Registrar of High Court listing the case before the Judge on Wednesday, 24th February, 1982. Please contact Registrar and if necessary, Advocate General of West Bengal immediately to enable Judge to take action as per direction of Supreme Court before close of Court today so that case is listed for tomorrow and proceeded with according to direction till Thursday and final orders passed on the 24th February, 1982 and case posted before the Supreme Court for further direction on the 25th February, 1982. Request Registrar to wait till Telex is handed over to him so that follow up action is directed by Supreme Court can be taken today itself. Secretary, election Commission of India. ? thereafter, I was shown in the Court on 24th February, 1982 a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court which was communicated to the Registrar, Appellate Side, which reads as follows: - ?we heard this matter for some few hours. Mr. Venugopal for petitioners and Dr. Chitale for Election Commission concluded their arguments. Mr. S. S. Ray, learned Counsel for the respondents, who are some of the original petitioners and also some of the respondents, was being heard, when we found that after Rule Nisi was issued by the learned Judge and ex parte ad interim stay was granted, on the motion made by the parties represented by Mr. Venugopal they were added and they requested by an application to vacate the interim stay and the learned Judge proceeded to hear the matter as to whether the stay should be confirmed or vacated or what interim order is necessary till the disposal of the petition. Venugopal they were added and they requested by an application to vacate the interim stay and the learned Judge proceeded to hear the matter as to whether the stay should be confirmed or vacated or what interim order is necessary till the disposal of the petition. We were informed that this hearing proceeded upto some time when the learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and authorities under the Election Commission was asked about some documents. The Court called for some documents from the Election Commission and the learned Advocate General promised to enquire whether he would be able to produce the documents. At that stage the learned Judge adjourned the matter to Thursday i. e. , on 25. 2. 1982 for further hearing of the matter. Thereafter the present petition was moved for obtaining special leave under order and also against the order dated February 19, 1982. In view of the fact that the learned Judge is seized of the matter and more so in view of the fact that this Court would be loathe to interfere particularly when the matter is part heard before the Court and in view of the comity amongst judicial functionaries, we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial functionaries, we consider, consistent with the dignity of judicial process, that the learned Judge should complete the hearing going on before him. We are, however, kept that this hearing and the order consequent upon the hearing must be pronounced latest on 25. 2. 1982 and the learned Judge completes the hearing and pronounces an order on that day. It is requested that the writ petition shall be placed on Board of the learned Judge (Hon'ble Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji) on Wednesday, 24th February,1982 and shall be heard and hearing completed and order pronounced before the expiry of Thursday, 25th February, 1982. If a reasoned order is made even an uncertified copy of the minutes of the order signed by the learned Judge may be produced before this Court. This matter stands adjourned proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. This matter stands adjourned proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of Election Commission. The parties are precluded from making any request for adjournment. Sd/- court MASTER ( 3 ) I direct that the original Telex Message from the Election Commission as well as the certified copy be kept in the record of this matter. A bare reading of the three different communications would indicate the difference in the communication and some apparent inconsistencies. ( 4 ) IN my limited experience, as a Judge of this High Court for about 14 years, I have not known read or heard of such type of request, or direction or expression of hope by the Supreme Court. I do not know how far this, again, be it a request, direction or expression of hope, is consistent either with the dignity of the judicial process or comity amongst Courts and judicial functionaries. I hope, that wiser heads in the future will decide. ( 5 ) THE contents and mode of the communication to this Court were unprecedented. In my opinion, the aforesaid communication is unwarranted by the constitution, law and precedence. As the dignity of this Court was concerned, I was hesitant to act on the said communication. But, keep as I am to maintain the dignity of the judiciary and subject as I feel myself to the judicial discipline and as I am anxious not to do anything to erode further the judicial process, I have proceeded to hear and pronounce in the interest of justice, as indicated in the latest communication of the Supreme Court. ( 6 ) ON 12th February, 1982 upon the petition of the petitioners and upon hearing learned Advocates for the petitioners, I had issued a Rule Nisi and passed an interim order as indicated in the said order. On 17th February, 1982 Lakshmi Charan Sen, Kamalapati Roy and Sukhomoy Chakraborty made an application for being added as parties. They stated in their petition, inter alia, as follows: - ?12. In the premises the applicants are vitally affected by the contentions raised in the writ petition and also by the interim order which this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to pass on February 12, 1982. They stated in their petition, inter alia, as follows: - ?12. In the premises the applicants are vitally affected by the contentions raised in the writ petition and also by the interim order which this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to pass on February 12, 1982. The applicants are desirous of contesting the said application as amongst other reasons, the outcome thereof will have far reaching consequences on the further of Parliamentary Democracy in India?. They prayed as follows: - (A) Lakshmi Charan Sen, Kamalapati Roy and Sukhomoy Chakrabarty, being applicants abovenamed residing at the places respectively mentioned in the Cause Title hereof be added as parties respondents to the writ petition filed by Sri A. K. M. Hassamanuzaman and others against Union of India and others wherein this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to issue a Rule Nisi and pass interim order on February 12, 1982. (b) Directions be given on the writ petitioners to serve a copy of the petition on the applicants forthwith ; (c) Such further and/or other order or orders be made as would afford complete relief to the applicants. ? ( 7 ) THAT application was allowed on that very day. Several other parties applied subsequently on 17th February, 1982 as well as on 19th February, 1982 and they were all added as per their prayers, learned Advocate General of West Bengal, who appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 submitted as follows which were duly recorded and a copy handed over to the parties: - ?mr. Advocate General makes the following statements: - (1) My Lord has been pleased to pass an injunction in terms of prayer (f) of the petition which is at page 145. It concerns 4 circulars and orders issued by the Election Commissioner, being dated 12th March, 1981, 12th May, 1981, 25th June, 1981 and 4th July, 1981. Whatever was to be done under those circulars and orders, they were all completed before 31st December, 1981 and nothing remains to be done and no further action remains to be taken on those circulars and orders. (2) Regarding prayer (f) (i), I state that there will be no scoring out of the names after the publication of the notice under section 15, I further state that notice under section 15 has not yet been published. (2) Regarding prayer (f) (i), I state that there will be no scoring out of the names after the publication of the notice under section 15, I further state that notice under section 15 has not yet been published. If a particular booth has got to be changed either from the Corporation Building or from any School building to any particular place, because of the exigency or any difficult situation 15 days' prior notice will be published in the newspapers and the political parties as well as the candidates concerned will be intimated accordingly. (3) Regarding prayer (f) (i) second there no compulsion on the part of the Election Commissioner to go into an intensive revision of voters' list. But, in fact, there had been an intensive revision, as per orders of the Election Commissioner in West Bengal, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh observing all the laws whatever are there and everything had been completed before 31st December, 1981, except that, upto 16th January, 1982, time was given to those voters for bringing in their names in the voters' list in the summary revision, who would in the meantime attain 21 years of age and be otherwise qualified for becoming a voter. Therefore, in this particular case, since most of these do not arise, I would pray that your Lordship will vacate the operation of your Lordship's injunction and permit us to continue the process till such time as your Lordship pleases to complete the process because within six months before the election, the Election Commissioner will have to issue the notification and the minimum time for such application is 33 days. Life of this Assembly will expire on 24th June, 1982 and we would require at least 40 days time for the purpose, which will roughly take us to either 14th or 15th May, 1982?. On being enquired about the documents, Mr. Advocate General stated as follows: - mr. Advocate General states that he will produce the documents mentioned in prayer (d) of the petition on the next date of hearing, if they are available, if not, he will indicate what instructions are there on the subject?. On being enquired about the documents, Mr. Advocate General stated as follows: - mr. Advocate General states that he will produce the documents mentioned in prayer (d) of the petition on the next date of hearing, if they are available, if not, he will indicate what instructions are there on the subject?. ( 8 ) AFTER considering the points raised and taking into consideration the averments made in paragraphs 53, 54, 55, 56 and in view of paragraph 57 (which along with other averments remaining uncontroverted), 59, 67, 70 and keeping in view the nature of the allegations in paragraph 72 and also paragraph 73 of the petition, and the factual position as mentioned in the different sub-paragraphs thereof which the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have no chosen to deny or controvert the same, and in view of the allegations made in the communications mentioned in paragraphs 75 to 78, allegations in paragraph 79 which also remain uncontroverted, the statements mentioned in paragraph 96 in respect of which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not to produce any documents or deny any allegations, keeping in mind paragraphs 88, 91, submissions in paragraphs 93, 94, 96 and the submission and points of law raised are important and substantial and also keeping in mind the statements of Lakshmi Charan Sen, Kamalapati Roy and Sukhomoy Chakraborty that ?the outcome of this application will have far-reaching consequence on the future of Parliamentary Democracy in India? and after having considered the points raised and at this stage being satisfied that there is need to go into the question of law and facts raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and also keeping in view the fact that the Election Commission has not made any recommendation as yet to the Governor or the issue of any notification contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, as such the ?election? process as explained in (1) Mohindra Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 at paragraph 121 and the observations of Mr. process as explained in (1) Mohindra Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 at paragraph 121 and the observations of Mr. Justice Bhagwati of the Gujarat High Court as His Lordship then was, in the case of (2) S. J. Jhala v. Chief Electoral Officer, reported in AIR 1969 Gujarat 292, paragraph 6 and the observations of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court of (3) A. K. Nair v. Election Commissioner of India, reported in AIR 1972 Kerala 5 and, as such not being immune from judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, I am of the opinion, that order as indicated hereinafter should be made. Indeed it is impossible to regard the preparation of the Electoral Roll as a stage in the process of election. It is the ?process of election? which is immune from judicial review. The Election Commission has been vested with the superintendence, direction and control of election and the immunity from judicial review is in respect of the dispute regarding the conduct of the election. This cannot prevent in appropriate cases where there are allegations of large scale exclusion of legitimate voters and inclusion of wrong and bogus names in the Electoral Rolls for the Court to interfere. In this connection my attention was drawn to several charts and documents which I have directed to be kept on the records of this matter, subject to the objections which also have been recorded. ( 9 ) IT is well-settled that if the election process has began election cannot be challenged before the completion of the election. It is also well-settled that where alternative and exhaustive remedies have been provided by the statute recourse of Article 226 of the Constitution should not be allowed to halt the election. (See the case of (4) N. P. Pannuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 , the case of (5) Dr. N. B. Khare v. Election Commissioner of India, AIR 1956 SC 694, the case of (6) H. M. Trivedi v. V. B. Raju, AIR 1973 SC 2602 , the case (7) C. M. Reddi v. Rev. Dvn. Officer, recorded in 9 Election Law Report, page 361, the case of (8) Nripendra v. Jai Ram Verma, AIR 1977 SC 1992 , the case of (9) Ashok Kumar v. Collector, Rajpur, AIR 1980 SC 112 ). Dvn. Officer, recorded in 9 Election Law Report, page 361, the case of (8) Nripendra v. Jai Ram Verma, AIR 1977 SC 1992 , the case of (9) Ashok Kumar v. Collector, Rajpur, AIR 1980 SC 112 ). None of these cases, however, deals with the situation like this important case before me where before no election process has started either by recommendation of the Election Commission under sub-section (2) of section 15 or before the issue of the notification under sub-section (2) of section 15, and where the challenge is not only on the ground of the non-compliance of the Representation of the People Acts and the rules framed thereunder but to disenfranchisement of a large section of the people by large scale exclusion of names and inclusion of many bogus names. In such a case prima facie it is doubtful whether section 100 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 would apply and in such circumstances the right of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be defeated specially when the election process has not started and there has been a prima facie arguable case made out. ( 10 ) THE Supreme Court has directed me ?to hear the matter? without considering any direction about the production of the document by the Election Commission or by any parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of the Election Commission. As is recorded in the submissions of the learned Advocate General and perhaps the perusal of the order of this Court as recorded would have made it clear that there was no formal order as such for production of document but Mr. Advocate General was enquired on certain points being raised on behalf of the petitioners by the Court whether his client would produce the documents mentioned in prayer (d) of the petition on the next date of hearing. To this the learned Advocate General indicated that ?he will produce the documents if they are available, if not he will indicate what instructions are there on the subject. ? ( 11 ) THEREFORE, today I will have to proceed without these documents and I have to take this objective factor into consideration that the direction as to the production of documents was stayed by the Supreme Court 'at the instance of the Election Commission'. ? ( 11 ) THEREFORE, today I will have to proceed without these documents and I have to take this objective factor into consideration that the direction as to the production of documents was stayed by the Supreme Court 'at the instance of the Election Commission'. Now, in paragraph 86 of the petition it was categorically stated that about 8 lakhs complaints have been filed before the Election Commission relating to the correction and the preparation of the voters' list. Reference is made to a Statesman, Edition of 10th of February, 1982. It was alleged there that complaints have not been looked into. Some of the documents showing that notices were given either after the date fixed for the hearing of the complaints or few hours before the hearing of the complaints were produced before the Court. Now, these could have only been verified from the records of the Election Commission or from a denial of the Election Commission, but that is not possible. It further appears from the submissions of the learned Advocate General recorded on the first day that revision was contemplated to be made upto 16th of January, 1982 and time was given to the voters for bringing in their names in the voters' list in the summary revision ?who would in the meantime attain 21 years of age and be otherwise qualified for becoming voter. ? But in this case it is clear from paragraph 74 that there are summary revision of the Electoral Roll Scheme dated 13th January, 1982 as mentioned in paragraph 75 that the applications in Form Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were invited. The perusal of these application forms would indicate that it was not only in case of those who had attained 21 years of age that revision was contemplated but it covered the case of inclusion of persons otherwise entitled to be included and covered the case of exclusion of persons who were wrongly included. Therefore, this stand of the learned Advocate General taken in Court on the 19th February, 1982 on behalf of the Election Commission as per their instructions cannot be consistent with press release, as mentioned in paragraph 74 giving the schedule of revision. This naturally raises that this point requires to be looked into from the records of the Election Commission which is not possible at this stage. This naturally raises that this point requires to be looked into from the records of the Election Commission which is not possible at this stage. It is true that, whether the 8 lakhs voters mentioned hereinbefore who were genuine voters or false voters or the complaints were true or false is a disputed question of fact which cannot be agitated in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. But it is indisputable on the basis of the allegations made that such 8 lakhs complaints where received by the Election Commission as alleged in the petition. But I am in the dark as to how these complaints were looked into or whether these complaints were disposed of in accordance with law. I have the allegation of the petitioners that these were not disposed of in accordance with law. I have no denial on behalf of the respondents. This question, in my opinion, raises an arguable question of facts as to whether the Election Commission has acted fairly and in accordance with rules and in accordance with its own procedure. My attention was drawn to certain communications made to Sri Subrata Mukherjee and also certain communications made to Sri Gopaldas Nag and others which were mentioned by the Election Commission which corroborate the fact that there were large scale complaints which were being directed by the Election Commission to be looked into but how in fact these complaints have been looked into and whether these complaints have been considered in accordance with law the petitioners are in dark, so is this Court. ( 12 ) ON the question of vires of the Act and rules, it has been alleged that enumerators who are to do so the work of revision should have minimum qualification to decide vital questions about citizenship, residence and age or such guidelines should have been laid down in the direction by the Election Commission. There is no indication in the rules and the section as to what are the polling stations. My attention was drawn to the number of voters in the polling station which indicated widespread disparity in the distribution of voters in different polling stations, for example, my attention was drawn to Annexure ?f? page 181, Item I, page 182 and the same was contrasted with Item 3 at page 185, similarly, in Annexure ?f? My attention was drawn to the number of voters in the polling station which indicated widespread disparity in the distribution of voters in different polling stations, for example, my attention was drawn to Annexure ?f? page 181, Item I, page 182 and the same was contrasted with Item 3 at page 185, similarly, in Annexure ?f? at page 210, item 10 and number of voters against that is nearly double of item 1 of the same page. Items 12 and 18 also indicate such kind of disparity. Similarly, at page 209 in Annexure 'f' there is large number of disproportionate voters in certain polling stations while in others the numbers were very small. It was contended that it was motivated by political considerations. No sketch map, it was alleged, was given regarding the area covered by the polling station to the political parties which was contrary to practice followed. It was further alleged that pooling booth not being defined and right to franchise being a constitutional right under Article 226 of the Constitution is being denied by rules framed under the Representation of People Act by demanding fees for registration as a voter. The questions of law and facts, in my opinion, prima facie, raise a case which has to be seriously considered. ( 13 ) I have taken into consideration the balance of convenience. If no order as indicated hereinafter is passed the election in West Bengal may, in view of the allegations made in the petition which remain uncontroverted, become suspect and there is danger of large section of people being disenfranchised. If, on the other hand, the Election Commission seriously with efficiency and honestly carries out the directions given in this order there is the possibility of the whole process prior to the election process beginning can be completed before the 14th May, 1982 so that notification under section 15 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 can be issued and in that case Election can be held before 24th of June, 1982 before the expiry of the life of the present Assembly. I have asked myself the question, which is better, to ask a large section of people to live with a brooding sense of injustice on the denial of the right to be included in the voters' list, a right guaranteed to the citizens under Article 226 of holding up election for a few days but still holding it before the expiry of the present term of the Assembly. Election must not only be held fairly and in accordance with law and rules but must appear to have been so concluded. In this connection, I must refer to the submission of the learned Advocate General recorded on 19th February, 1982 and the submission of Sri Ray made in Court yesterday which have also been recorded. I have also to bear in mind the submissions and of the other respondents about the inconvenience and the all India consequences of the order of injunction. On striking a balance between these. I am of the opinion, that the orders as proposed herein should be made in the interest of justice. I have also considered the contentions of locus standi of the petitioners and delay, urged on behalf of the added respondents. In view of the points involved, and conduct of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 alleged, and as no recommendations as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 15 has not yet been made, in my opinion, it would be improper to come to a clear finding on these points at this stage. There raises the important question of individual citizens right to assert public right which have effect upon life, liberty and property, in a legal forum under the constitute. ( 14 ) I accordingly order and direct as follows: - (i) The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be entitled to dispose of all the objections, issue corrections or revisions etc. and take all preliminary steps necessary prior to making the recommendation as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) (a) Before that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 will be entitled to dispose of all the objections, issue corrections or revisions etc. and take all preliminary steps necessary prior to making the recommendation as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) (a) Before that respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 make any recommendation in terms of section 16 (2) of the Act, 1951, they should indicate in a writing giving all particulars of how many objections for inclusion and exclusion were filed after 31st of December, 1981 to the Draft Electoral Roll and how many of these have been disposed of, and in what manner. (b) These objections which have not been disposed of should be disposed of indicating the reasons either for acceptance or rejection. It is desirable that these objections should be disposed of by officers apart from those who were responsible for the preparation of the Draft Electoral Roll in the particular area concerned and the reasons for acceptance of rejection should also be indicated in respect of the applications disposed of and in respect of application not yet disposed of. That would be consistent with fair play and justice. It is clear from the reading of the rules that the 'orders' are required to be passed. (c) The respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 should indicate, in writing, its views in respect of the difficulties on the points in paragraphs 72 and 73 of the petition if and how preparation and revisions in those areas have been made. (d) What steps, if any, on the points indicated in (a), (b) and (c) before were taken should be mentioned in a document to be filed in the Supreme Court with a copy of the same in this High Court and the petitioners and other respondents should be intimated as to where and when the said document can be inspected. (e) In the said document the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 should indicate whether complaints mentioned in paragraph 95 were received and, if so, whether these have been disposed of and if so, by whom and for what reasons. (f) If there are appeals from the orders or the decisions of the Registration Officer the said appeal should be disposed of by another offices as will be designated by the Election Commission. Mr. (f) If there are appeals from the orders or the decisions of the Registration Officer the said appeal should be disposed of by another offices as will be designated by the Election Commission. Mr. Advocate General has stated that all these have been disposed of. If so, in the document it should be stated how these have been disposed of and when. (g) The Election Commission should indicate and define the polling station and the Election Commission should consider whether it is just and proper in view of the vide disparity of numbers allocated between different polling station as indicated during the hearing of this application, whether certain guidelines should be laid down fixing the approximate number and consider afresh whether the numbers in the different allocated polling stations are proper or not. (h) After completing the directions, as indicated above and after expiry of seven days time of filing the documents, as indicated and giving intimation to the parties as stated above, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, namely, the Election Commission may make the recommendation as contemplated under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. But until that they will not do so. All actions taken as aforesaid must abide by the result of the rule. ( 15 ) THE interim order dated 12th February, 1982 as continued by the order dated 19th February, 1982 is modified and varied to the extent indicated above. ( 16 ) SUBMISSION have been made on behalf of the petitioners for early hearing of this writ petition. The respondents have not indicated their attitude to the early hearing but inasmuch as the respondents have been served with the copies of the petition. I direct that the affidavit-in-opposition, if any, should be filed by 12th of March, 1982 reply, if any by the petitioners are by 23rd March, 1982 and the matter should appear for hearing as a specially fixed matter on Wednesday the 24th March, 1982 and should be heard until it is disposed of. ( 17 ) SUBMISSIONS, as recorded, copies whereof have been given to the parties should be kept as part of the records of this matter, countersigned by Assistant Registrar. ( 17 ) SUBMISSIONS, as recorded, copies whereof have been given to the parties should be kept as part of the records of this matter, countersigned by Assistant Registrar. Let a plain copy of the order signed by me be handed over to the Advocate General appearing for the Election Commission for production before the Supreme Court as directed on 26th February, 1982 at 10. 30 A. M. Interim order modified and varied to the extent indicated above.