JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. 1. The petition under Article 226 of the CoDStitutiori of India is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge, Ballia, dated 26th September, 1986, allowing the appeal of respondent no. 2 and setting aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Officer Bansdih, Ballia) dated 18th December, 1985, dismissing the election petition filed by respondent no. 2 questioning the election of the petitioner as Pradhan of Gram Sabha Gangahara in the election held in June, 1982. 2. The electoral rolls of the Gaon Sabha Gangahara were published on 2nd January, 1982. Thereafter a time schedule for the purposes of the holding of the election of the office of Pradhan of the said Gaon Sabha was fixed and notified. The last date for filing the nomination was 12th May. May 13, was the date fixed for scrutiny and the election was scheduled to be held on 3rd June. The completion of the election took place on 5th June when the result of the election was declared and the petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha Gangahara. Just after a day of the last date of the nomination i. e. 13th May, 1982, an application by the petitioner and some other persons was made before the Electoral Registration Officer seeking amendment in the electoral roll by deletion of the names of certain voters. The Electoral Registration Officer by means of his order dated 28th May, 1982 ordered deletion of 116 voters. 3. The election which took place on 3rd June, 1982, was on the basis of the electoral roll as modified by the order of the Electoral Registration Officer dated 28th May, 1982. 4. Respondent no. 2 questioned the election of the petitioner basically on the ground that the result of election had been materially affected by gross failure to comply with the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter called the Act) inasmuch as the Electoral Registration Officer, who was entrusted with the obligation of maintaining the correct and legal electoral roll, interpolated the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha in question by illegally ordering the deletion of the names of 116 voters in contravention of the provisions contained in the first and second provisos to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act. This contention of respondent no. This contention of respondent no. 2 did not find favour with the Prescribed Authority and as such he dismissed the election petition of respondent no. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority the petitioner filed a revision under section 12-C (6) of the Act. This revision was heard and disposed of by the learned District Judge, Ballia, by means of his judgment and order impugned in the instant writ petition. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the deletion of the names of 116 voters from the voters list was made in violation of the two provisos to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act which resulted in gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and such a failure affected the result of the election materially. I have heard Sri M. S. Negi in support of the petition and Sri Yogesh Agarwal for contesting respondent no. 2. 5. Sri M. S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the conclusion of the learned District Judge on the ground that the deletion of the names of 116 voters from the list amounted to mere irregularity and not gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act affecting the result of the election materially. The act of the deletion of the names of the voters has been attempted to be justified under paragraph 24 of the Uttar Pradesh Gaon Sabha Nirvachak Registration Order, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Order), issued by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh under section 9 (11) of the Act. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that this stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner was never taken before the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. Before the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge the action of Electoral Registration Officer in deleting the names of 116 voters from the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha was sought to be justified on the basis of paragraph 21 of the 1978 Order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not, very rightly, invoked paragraph 21 as the impugned deletion was neither correction of clerical or printing error nor of double entry of the names of the electors in the same electoral roll. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not, very rightly, invoked paragraph 21 as the impugned deletion was neither correction of clerical or printing error nor of double entry of the names of the electors in the same electoral roll. 6. Sri Negi also made a faint attempt to suggest that the learned District Judge was not competent to go into the question of the validity of the electoral roll inasmuch as the electoral roll prepared under section 9 of the Act, after being published, acquired the finality and sub-section (12) of Section 9 of the Act prohibits such an investigation. In support of his contention SRI Negi placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Girish Chandra v. The III Addl. District Judge, Pilibhit, 1986 AWC 381. Sri Negi further made a grievance in regard to the reliance placed by the learned District Judge upon the joint affidavit of 82 persons (paper no. 14/1), filed on 12th November, 1982 before the Prescribed Authority. The complaint of the learned counsel is that the petitioner had no opportunity to meet the averments made in the said affidavit. In the said affidavit 82 deponents had averred that due to deletion of their names from the voter list in pursuance of the order of the Electoral Registration Officer dated 28th May, 1982, they could not cast their votes in the election held on 3rd June, 1982, and in case they had been allowed to cast their votes they would have cast their votes in favout of contesting respondent no. 2. Nowhere in the petition or before the Prescribed Authority or before the District Judge, Ballia, it was the case of the petitioner that copy of the affidavit in question was either not served on the petitioner or was filed in the court without bringing into his notice. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioner (id not have any notice of the said affidavit. It was for the petitioner to file affidavit to controvert the averments made by 82 deponents of the affidavit but the petitioner, obviously, failed to do so. That being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any grievance on that score. 7. It cannot therefore, be said that the petitioner (id not have any notice of the said affidavit. It was for the petitioner to file affidavit to controvert the averments made by 82 deponents of the affidavit but the petitioner, obviously, failed to do so. That being so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise any grievance on that score. 7. Sri Yogesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent has urged that the election which took place on 3rd June, 1982, was on the basis of an electoral roll which was modified by the Electoral Registration Officer in utter disregard to the mandate of the statute contained in the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act. The modification in the electoral roll, SRI Agarwal submitted, was also invalid in asmuch as 116 voters whose names had been ordered to be deleted were not afforded any opportunity which was sine qua non under the second proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act. In these circumstances, the learned counsel contended that the validity of the election held on the basis of an invalid electoral roll could be gone into and was rightly investigated upon by the learned District Judge. This deleberate act of deletion of the names of 116 voters from the electoral roll, according to the learned counsel, amounted to gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act which materially affected the result of the election. 8. Section 9 of the Act provides that there shall be an electoral roll for every Gaon Sabha which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act, under the supervision of the Nirvachan Nideshak (Panchayat) by an Electoral Registration Officer. Under sub-section (2) the Electoral Registration Officer is to prepare and publish such electoral roll in the manner prescribed by paragraph 20 of the 1978 Order and upon its publication the electoral roll, subject to any alteration, addition or modification made under or in accordance with the Act, becomes the electoral roll of the Gaon Sabha prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 9 of the Act declares that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of more than one Gaon Sabha or more than once in the electoral roll for the same Gaon Sabha. Sub-section (6) of section 9 of the Act declares that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of more than one Gaon Sabha or more than once in the electoral roll for the same Gaon Sabha. This sub-section prohibits the registration of a person in the electoral roll for more than one Gaon Sabha and also the registration of same person more than once in the electoral roll of particular Gaon Sabha. If any of these two contingencies occurs the remedy is provided under sub-section (8) which deals with correction, deletion and addition in the electoral rolls. It appears that the rectification of the mistake contemplated by sub-section (6) falls within the expressions 'correction' and 'deletion' envisaged by the provisions of sub-section (8). The remedy of the deletion and correction can be availed of in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (8) and paragraphs 10, 21 and 24 of the 1978 Order. Paragraph 10 of 1978 Order provides that if a person wants to object with regard to the inclusion of the name of any person, he may file objection. Paragraph 21 empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to correct the clerical, printing or error of double entries any time. For filing objection under paragraph 10 of the 1978 Order the limitation of 15 days from the date of the publication of the draft electoral roll is prescribed under paragraph 11 of the 1978 Order. No objection under paragraph 10 can be entertained if the objection is not filed within the time stipulated by paragraph 11. However, paragraph 24 of 1978 Order empowers the Electoral Registration Officer to entertain the objection or application contemplated by paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Order after the expiry of 15 days prescribed by paragraph II on certain conditions. This remedy is available even after the electoral roll has been finally published under paragraph 20 of 1978 Order. 9. From the perusal of section 9 of the Act and paragraphs of the 1978 Order referred to above it is abundantly clear that the power of correction, deletion or addition in the electoral roll can be exercised by the Electoral Registration Officer subject to the limitation imposed upon him by the Act and the Rules. 10. 9. From the perusal of section 9 of the Act and paragraphs of the 1978 Order referred to above it is abundantly clear that the power of correction, deletion or addition in the electoral roll can be exercised by the Electoral Registration Officer subject to the limitation imposed upon him by the Act and the Rules. 10. There is a complete prohibition against the exercise of the power of correction, deletion or addition in the electoral roll by the Electoral Registration Officer during the period between the last date of nomination and the date on which the election is completed- This prohibition which is contained in the first proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act divests the Electoral Registration Officer completely of the power of modification of the electoral roll during the said period. If the Electoral Registration Officer exercises the power of modification of the electoral roll during the prohibited period, his action can certainly be categorised as gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is now well settled that proper electoral roll is the substratum and fulcrum of the entire election process. No body can be allowed to contaminate and defile the electoral rolls by interfering therewith illegally. If the electoral rolls are allowed to be sullied in the manner as has been done in this case it would lead to unsavory results and may be pernicious to the entire electoral process. In Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR 1957 SC 304 the Supreme Court held it is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained...............the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned. 11. In the instant case the power of modification of electoral rolls by deleting the names of 116 voters was exercised by the Electoral Registration Officer after the calendar of events of the election process had been fixed and published. After the commencement of the election process by fixation and publication of the calendar of events of the election the power of modification of the electoral roll could not be exercised during the period between the last day of nomination and the completion of the election. After the commencement of the election process by fixation and publication of the calendar of events of the election the power of modification of the electoral roll could not be exercised during the period between the last day of nomination and the completion of the election. The contention of Sri Negi that the exercise of power of modification by the Electoral Registration Officer was mere irregularity is untenable. It is not a case of irregular exercise of power but a case of exercise of power which the Electoral Registration Officer did not possess. Shri Agarwal is right in contending that the modification of electoral roll during the period between the nomination and before the completion of the election would be invalid and any election on the basis of so modified electoral roll would not be immune from attack. 12. The case of Girish Chandra v. The III Additional District Judge, Pilibhit, 1986 AWC 381 relied by Sri Negi in support of the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner to. the effect that the deletion of the names of the voters during the prohibited period did not amount to gross failure to comply with the provisions of the Act and would not be open to challenge in election petition, does not help him. On the contrary, it helps the contention raised on behalf of contesting respondent no. 2. In paragraph 28 of the judgment of the said case this Court held that the words 'gross failure' and 'comply' would mean flagrant omission to perform a duty in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder whether that was intentional or unintentional. This Court further held that in case there was a gross failure to act in accordance with the Act and the Rules by the Officer on whom the Legislature had cast a duty to conduct the election the election could be challenged on that ground. In . This Court further held that in case there was a gross failure to act in accordance with the Act and the Rules by the Officer on whom the Legislature had cast a duty to conduct the election the election could be challenged on that ground. In . the instant case it cannot be disputed that the Electoral Registration Officer was enjoined with the legal duty to maintain the electoral roll of the concerned Gaon Sabha in accordance with the provisions of the Act and by ordering deletion of the names of the voters in violation of the mandate of the first proviso to subsection (8) of Section 9 and without complying with the requirements of the second proviso thereof he omitted to perform his duty to maintain the electoral roll in accordance with law. The learned District Judge was right in holding that the act of deletion of the names of the voters was gross failure on the part of the Electoral Registration Officer to comply with the provisions of the Act. Now comes up for consideration the other aspect of the attack on the impugned judgment, namely, the question of the material effect on the result of the election arising out of the illegal deletion of the names of 116 electors. The learned Prescribed Authority while dealing this question under issue no. 4 concluded that if the deletion of 116 voters could be held to be invalid the same would necessarily materially affect the result of the election in question. The Prescribed Authority refused to come to the conclusion that the result of the election was materially affected as he declined to take into consideration the joint affidavit filed by 82 voters whose names had been deleted on the ground that the affidavit purported to disclose for whom the deponents would have voted in case their names had not been deleted from the voters list and the election being made by secret ballot, the averments regarding voting were violative of the secrecy of the ballot. 13. It is well settled that no elector can be compelled to disclose for whom he voted or would have voted but there is no legal bar against his voluntary disclosure regarding the factum of his having voted for or his decision to vote for a candidate. 13. It is well settled that no elector can be compelled to disclose for whom he voted or would have voted but there is no legal bar against his voluntary disclosure regarding the factum of his having voted for or his decision to vote for a candidate. When an elector voluntarily discloses that he had or would have voted for a particular candidate it would not amount to violation of the secrecy of ballot. The learned District Judge considering the entire material on the record has recorded a finding of fact that the deletion of the names of 116 voters which prevented them from voting in favour of the contesting respondent no. 2 did affect the result of the election materially. This finding is a finding of fact and cannot be re-examined by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 14. Having regard to the above discussion, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 17th December, 1986 is discharged.