L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE 1st petitioner is the sarpanch of Karumanchi Gram Panchayat of Sivalyapuram Mandal, Guntur district. Petitioners 2 to 7 are the residents of that village. They challenge the action of the respondents herein in not including the names of the voters shown in the list submitted along with their representation dated 19-7-2002, in the voters list of 2002, pertaining to 108, Vinukonda Assembly constituency, Quntur district, as well as in the list of Karumanchi Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to include the said names in the voters list. ( 2 ) BROADLY stated, the relevant facts alleged by the petitioners are that the election to the MPTC seat of Karumanchi territorial constituency was held in the month of July, 2001 and the election to the gram Panchayat of that village was held in august, 2001, on the basis of the voters list prepared for the Vinukonda Assembly constituency. The 2nd respondent has undertaken the revision of voters list in the month of January 2002. It is alleged that the names of about 150 voters, which figured in the voters list of 1999 Assembly Elections were found missing. The affected persons made applications to the 2nd respondent in January, 2002 itself and no action was taken thereon. ( 3 ) THE MPTC member of Karumanchi area died in July, 2001. When the by- election to the same was imminent, the petitioners verified the voters list and, to their surprise, were found that the names of petitioners 2 to 7 and several others were missing. The petitioners submitted a representation on 19-7-2002 to the respondents about the deletion of the names of genuine voters and requested them to conduct an enquiry. Acting on the representation, the 2nd respondent- the district Collector, directed the 4th respondent to make enquiry into the matter. It is stated that the 4th respondent visited the village on 17-8-2002, recorded the statements of several persons whose names were deleted and ultimately submitted a report. It is also stated that the Secretary of the gram Panchayat had certified the fact that the persons, whose names were deleted, are residents of that village. It is stated that the 4th respondent visited the village on 17-8-2002, recorded the statements of several persons whose names were deleted and ultimately submitted a report. It is also stated that the Secretary of the gram Panchayat had certified the fact that the persons, whose names were deleted, are residents of that village. The petitioners complain that the by-election to the office of MPTC is sought to be conducted on the basis of the alleged irregularities in the voters list in which the names of several genuine voters have been missing. ( 4 ) THE 3rd respondent, who is the electoral Registering Officer, filed the counter affidavit. It is stated therein that the revision of electoral roll was undertaken in accordance with the provisions of registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules) framed under the Representation of the peoples Act, 1950 and the A. P. Panchayat raj (Preparation and Publication of electoral Rolls) Rules 2000, framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, in exercise of the power under Section 268 read with Section 11 of the A. P. Panchayat raj Act, 1994. It is admitted that the revision of electoral rolls of the Assembly constituency was undertaken in january, 2002 and the particulars of the detailed programme were also furnished in the counter-affidavit. The draft electoral roll was to be published on 29-1-2002, the objections were to be received upto 28-2-2002 and the final publication of the rolls; was to be done on 28-3-2002. ( 5 ) IT is stated that so far as vinukonda Assembly Constituency is concerned, 150 claims were received in form No. 6 for inclusion in the voters list of Karumanchi village and on enquiry, 50 names were found to be in order and, as such, their names were included in the voters list of the respective Polling station Nos. 132 to 135. As regards deletion of the names from the voters list, it is stated that the same was undertaken by him in accordance with the provisions of the 1960 Rules referred to above. Fax message dated 19-3-2002 was issued by the District Collector, on the ground that there was abnormal increase to the extent of 16. 87% in the enumeration of voters in Vinukonda constituency as against 10. 5%, which is considered to be normal. Fax message dated 19-3-2002 was issued by the District Collector, on the ground that there was abnormal increase to the extent of 16. 87% in the enumeration of voters in Vinukonda constituency as against 10. 5%, which is considered to be normal. To sum up, deletion of the voters was not on the basis of individual claims or verification, but on "the basis of suspicion and following the procedure prescribed under the Rules. ( 6 ) SRI D. S. Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the deletion of the names of the petitioners 2 to 7 and several others was not only without basis, but is also contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules referred to above. He states that the respondents have deleted the names of those persons who are very much in the village, only on the basis of suspicion and without following the procedure prescribed by law. It is his contention that the deletion of the name of an individual from the voters list would not only affect the rights of that individual, but will have an impact on the electoral process as such. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Advocate- general appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that during the process of revision of electoral rolls, at the stage of publication of Draft Electoral List of the Vinukonda constituency, there was abnormal increase in the voters, and in that view of the matter, the procedure stipulated under Rule 21-A of the 1960 Rules was undertaken. He states that since the procedure prescribed by the relevant Rules was followed no exception can be taken. It is also his contention that once the final electoral roll is published; the same cannot be interfered with. The other serious objection raised by him is that as long as the affected voters have not chosen to challenge it, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the electoral roll. ( 8 ) THE local authorities, such as, Zilla parishad, Mandal Parishad, Gram panchayats, etc. , were constituted and their administration was provided for under the various Acts, such as A. P. Zilla Parishad act, A. P. Gram Panchayat Act, etc. In the year 1992, the Parliament amended the constitution of India by inserting Part IX and addling Articles 243 (a) to 243 (o), through 73rd Amendment. , were constituted and their administration was provided for under the various Acts, such as A. P. Zilla Parishad act, A. P. Gram Panchayat Act, etc. In the year 1992, the Parliament amended the constitution of India by inserting Part IX and addling Articles 243 (a) to 243 (o), through 73rd Amendment. This added Part dealt with Panchayats and their structures, with special emphasis on the elections. As a measure of providing further details as to working of the same, the A. P. State legislature enacted A. P. Panchayat Raj act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the act) duly repealing the Acts, which hitherto held the field. Section 11 of the Act provides for preparation and publication of electoral role for the Gram Panchayat. In a way, this provision adopts the electoral roll prepared for the concerned assembly constituency published under the Representation of peoples Act. To certain extent, the broad procedure stipulated under 1960 Rules, on one hand, and the one under Section 11 of the Act, are similar. ( 9 ) THE respondents have undertaken general revision of electoral rolls in the month of January, 2002. Obviously, they had to follow the procedure prescribed under the 1960 Rules. As indicated above, the government of Andhra Pradesh, had , undertaken special revision of electoral rolls of Assembly constituencies with a programme, which was uniform to all the constituencies. The programme was as under: ( 21 ) THE learned Additional Advocate- general submits that once the electoral roll is published, the same cannot be interfered with, that too, at the instance of the 3rd parties. He relied on several judgments. There is absolutely no quarrel with the proposition. However, it needs to be noted that the names of petitioners 2 to 7 have been deleted from the voters list during the revision. The 1st petitioner is the Sarpanch. As observed earlier, the hon ble Supreme Court has not only recognised the rights of the political parties to ensure compliance in such matters, but an observation was made to the effect that they are under duty to educate the people as regards inclusion and deletion of their names in the electoral list. A Sarpanch of a village cannot be said to be a stranger or without any authority to ensure such compliance. A Sarpanch of a village cannot be said to be a stranger or without any authority to ensure such compliance. The magnitude of the deletion was so large and so glaring that the respondents themselves have got an enquiry conducted through the MRDO, who in turn had conducted on the spot enquiry and submitted a report. Even that report was brushed aside without any cogent reasons. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, viewed from any angle, the exercise undertaken by the respondents in deleting the names of the persons furnished in the list by the petitioners cannot be sustained, either on facts or in law. Their action in this regard is declared to be contrary to the procedure prescribed under 1960 Rules and the deletion so undertaken by the respondents is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The deletion of the names of the 199 persons from the Revised Electoral roll of Karumanchi village, Sivalyapuram mandal, Guntur District, referred to in the representation made by the petitioners is set aside; (b) The Draft Electoral Roll published on 29-1-2002 shall stand restored; (c) The 3rd respondent shall take steps to prepare the final Electoral Roll strictly following the procedure stipulated under the proviso to Rule 21-A of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, duly giving notices to the affected persons and publish the final list thereafter.