JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.:—The present petition is filed by the petitioner as a social worker seeking the direction from this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India that the respondents should be directed to revise and rectify the Electoral Rolls of all the electoral constituencies both Assembly and Parliamentary in the State of Maharashtra as an intensive revision of the rolls. 2. The petitioner who was a member of Parliament in the 13th Lok Sabha recently contested from the Mumbai Northeast Parliamentary Constituency in the General Election of 14th Lok Sabha. It is the case of the petitioner that in the course of the said Election it was found that large number of voters names are either missing or a totally bogus names are inserted. In some cases the persons name are shown in different place and different area then in an area he is actually residing. In a nut shell it is the case of the petitioner that there are large number of discrepancies in the electoral roll of the various Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Maharashtra. It is further contended that since now Maharashtra Assembly Election are due, it is necessary that an intensive revision of rolls is undertaken by the respondent. It is his case that the revision of Electoral Rolls and the programme which has been announced by the respondents is only a summary revision of the electoral roll and is not an intensive revision. It is his further case that the summary revision of electoral roll would not rectify the various large scale discrepancies existing in the electoral rolls. It is therefore, contended that the respondent should be directed to undertake intensive of electoral roll and not the summary revision. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent particularly the Chief Election Officer of the State has filed his affidavit inter alia pointing out that the summary revision of electoral roll is already in progress and a time table has been set up for such a summary revision of the rolls. He has pointed out various dates which are stipulated for the purpose of conducting the said summary revision of electoral rolls. 4. He has pointed out various dates which are stipulated for the purpose of conducting the said summary revision of electoral rolls. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation has also pointed out that they have given wide publicity and they are also giving individual publicity for inviting objection from the various voters for the purpose of rectification of errors which have been found in the course of Parliamentary Election. The respondents have filed an affidavit and has pointed out various steps which are taken for the purpose of publicity to be given for the program of revision which has been undertaken though in a summary manner. 5. The learned Counsel for the respondent points out that it has been decided that the electoral roll may be split in polling-stations wise and the same shall be distributed to the different localities/residents/welfare association/housing societies by 7th June, 2004 so that the people residing in the said societies or localities can ascertain whether their name is appearing on the electoral roll or not and apply for rectification if it is necessary. It has been further stated by the respondent in an affidavit dated 22nd June, 2004 and repeated by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in the course of his arguments that the said sectional list of the electoral roll is also kept in the local Post Office along with necessary form 6 and 7 for inclusion or deletion of the name of the electoral from the said voters list. The learned Counsel also pointed out that the entire voters list is also placed on the website along with the forms which can be down loaded and persons interested can file suggestions and objections for the revision of their names in the electoral roll. 6. The petitioners have filed an affidavit dated 25th June, 2004 and it has been contended that the Chief Election Officer of Maharashtra State has not taken any such steps as indicated in their affidavit. The petitioner has further pointed out that infact the petitioner alongwith other persons had a meeting with Chief Election Officer on 19th June, 2004 and in the said meeting the respondents are supposed to have admitted that more than 50% of the area of the Mumbai remained uncovered till 19th June, 2004 in respect of distribution of the society wise voters list. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that there is no use of putting the voters list on web site unless the CD along with the key mode is distributed by the respondent so as to have access to the said web site. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel of both the parties. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there should be an intensive revision of electoral roll before the assembly election. We have perused the provisions pertaining to the revision of electoral roll particularly Rule 25 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 which provides for the intensive revision of electoral rolls as claimed by the respondents. 8. The sub-rule (2) of Rule 25 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 inter alia prescribes that whenever an intensive revision of the electoral rolls has to be undertaken then in that event the Election Commission is required to prepare the electoral roll afresh after undertaking the exercise an contemplated under Rules 4 to 23 as if the preparation of the electoral roll is for the first time. The said Rule 4 to 23 sets out details of preparation of electoral rolls. We do not find that any such exercise is necessary to be undertaken at present before the assembly election are conducted as claimed by the petitioner. 9. It has been also pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondents that in fact such intensive revision of electoral rolls has taken place in 2001-2002 and thereafter the summary revision of electoral roll is already undertaken in 2003. The present revision is in progress is the second summary revision because of the complaints of the voters that their names are not included and are not found in the electoral roll during the parliament elections. 10. We are of the view that it is upto the respondents to decide and determine whether the electoral roll should be revised intensively or summarily. It is the opinion to be formed by the respondent taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court cannot interfere in such an opinion arrived at by the respondents Election Commissioner. It is the opinion to be formed by the respondent taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the Court cannot interfere in such an opinion arrived at by the respondents Election Commissioner. Thus, we reject the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there should be an intensive revision of electoral roll and not a summary manner as decided by the respondents Election Commissioner. 11. However, in so far as the grievance of the petitioner is concerned pertaining to access to the web site. We direct the respondents Election Commissioner publicise the key mode and/or web address so as to enable the person to access the said web site. We are of the view that there is no necessity to direct the Election Commissioner to issue a C.D. for the aforesaid purpose. We also further direct the respondents Election Commissioner that in an event if particular instance of errors in the electoral rolls are pointed out to the respondents then the respondents. Election Commissioner shall look into it and do the needful. We further direct the Election Commissioner to give widest publicity as set out in their affidavit dated 25th June, 2004 so as to enable people to file their application for inclusion or deletion of their names from the electoral roll. 12. We have, been informed by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi has appointed an observer for the purpose of supervising the work of summary revision of electoral roll which is in progress. We hope and trust that the said observer will also look into any particular instance of grievance made by the persons including the petitioners herein and if found true and genuine then the necessary actions will be taken. However, we made it clear that these directions do not in any way indicate that the Election Commissioner is not entitled to adhere to the schedule and time table fixed by them. 13. With the aforesaid direction, we dispose of the present petition. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 14. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Stenographer. Order accordingly. ----