JUDGMENT By the Court.—These are two writ petitions which challenge the procedure adopted by the Election Commission of India and the Chief Electoral Officer (Graduates’ Constituency) U.P. Lucknow in preparing the Electoral Roll for the aforesaid election of the Council which are likely to be held some times in this year. One petition is filed by Sri Hari Shankar Jain, a practising advocate of this Court namely writ petition No. 999 of 2008 (M.B.) and he has argued the matter in person. The other writ petition has been filed by Sri Sudarsha Avasthi and that petition has also been argued by Sri Hari Shankar Jain. 2. A short counter affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Lucknow in the writ petition filed by Sri Sudarsha Avasthi to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. Since the questions involved in both the writ petitions are common, therefore the parties have given out that the affidavits exchanged in the writ petition of Sudarsha Avasthi, may be taken into consideration even in the writ petition filed by Sri Hari Shankar Jain. 3. The petitioners in the writ petitions have not raised any individual grievance about their non-registration as elector, in the Electoral Roll in the coming election of Graduates’ Constituency, nor there is mention of any name or of any person who has been denied the registration as elector for any of the reasons on which the petitions are being pressed. Clarifying the stand of the petitioners, Sri Hari Shankar Jain, stated that it is a Public Interest Litigation and for a larger public interest as the voters who are eligible for being enrolled as elector have been deprived of their right to get themselves enrolled for want of necessary procedure being adopted by the Commission and therefore, even if no individual prejudice is caused to the petitioners, the petitions being for the interest of many more persons who are not before the Court, are maintainable. 4. 4. Challenging the action of the Electoral Registration Officer it has been pressed that under the Rules it was necessary to issue public notice on or before 1st October, 2007 calling upon the persons entitled to be registered in that Roll to send or; deliver at his office before 7th day of November, 2007 (Wednesday) i.e. by the 6th November, 2007) Tuesday at the latest on application in Form No. 18 and 19 as the case may be. But this notice was never published in the News Papers much less in the given format, as a result of the aforesaid failure on the part of the Electoral Registration Officer, the persons who were entitled to be enrolled as elector did not get sufficient opportunity, which was a mandatory requirement under the aforesaid Rules nor the time schedule given therein was followed. Also the re-publication in the News Papers was not done as required. 5. Further argument is that the application forms No. 18 and 19 as the case may be were not collected/received in the office of Electoral Registration Officer or Assistant Electoral Registration Officer but they were received in the office of the designated officers which was not permissible under the Rules and lastly it has been argued that the forms were accepted in bulk, whereas the form was to be submitted individually and that the application forms in some cases did contain either at the top or at the bottom the names of the persons who are prospective candidates for contesting election which disentitles them from getting enrolled as electors. 6. It has also been alleged that in the manner in which the matter is being preceded with and the way in which the application forms have been accepted is a clear design and concerted effort to rig the election and it has the effect of rigging of election before hand i.e. even before the elections take place. 7. Sri O.P. Srivastava, appearing for the respondents raised a challenge to the maintainability of the writ petitions by the two individuals who do not have any grievance about their non-registration nor they say that they were not aware of the dates when they were to apply for getting themselves registered as electors. 7. Sri O.P. Srivastava, appearing for the respondents raised a challenge to the maintainability of the writ petitions by the two individuals who do not have any grievance about their non-registration nor they say that they were not aware of the dates when they were to apply for getting themselves registered as electors. He further says that even if the petition is taken as Public Interest Litigation, it is essential that the rights of some persons should have been affected by the action under challenge and merely on assumption that some persons might not have been able to enrol themselves, would not make the petition maintainable. Since no body has come forward to say that because of any discrepancy or irregularity in the publication of the first notice dated 1st October, 2007 he or she has been deprived of opportunity to get him or her enrolled as elector the grievance if any is purely academic. The petitioner, who is a practising advocate also has not mentioned in the writ petition that there is any such person or group of persons, who are effected by the alleged irregularities and merely because he feels that this alleged irregularity has resulted into some prejudice to the electors, the petitions cannot be said to be maintainable. 8. He has also submitted that the petitioner, Sri Hari Shankar Jain as Counsel has earlier filed a writ petition bearing No. 8100 (M.B.) of 2007 which is pending at Allahabad in which he has challenged the Circular dated 26.10.2007 saying that the Electoral Rolls should not be directed to be made on the basis of the aforesaid guidelines whereas in the present writ petition he says that the same very circular should have been followed and by not doing so, this entire exercise stand vitiated and therefore, the two writ petitions, one filed by him in the individual capacity i.e. the present writ petition and the other as Counsel claim contradictory reliefs as such also the present writ petition cannot be maintained. 9. We do not find it necessary to delve into the aforesaid question as it is the wisdom of the Counsel to press his petition. The other petition shall be considered when it is heard. 10. 9. We do not find it necessary to delve into the aforesaid question as it is the wisdom of the Counsel to press his petition. The other petition shall be considered when it is heard. 10. On merits it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the procedure for preparing the Electoral Roll has been followed in its entirety and there has been no breach at all. 11. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 provide for the manner in which the Electoral Rolls are to be prepared in a graduate constituency. Part 4 of the said Rules in which Rule 31 (3) is placed is relevant for the present controversy. Rule 31 is being quoted below : “31. Rolls for graduates’ and teachers’ constituencies.—(1) The roll for every graduates’ or teachers’ constituency shall be prepared in such form, manner and language, or languages as the Election Commission may direct. (2) The roll shall be divided into convenient parts which shall be numbered consecutively. (3) For the purpose of preparing the roll the registration officers shall, on or before the 1st October, issue a public notice calling upon every person entitled to be registered in that roll to send to, or deliver at his office before the 7th day of November next following an application in Form 18 or Form 19, as the case may be, for inclusion of his name : Provided that for the purpose of preparing the roll for the first time for the Legislative Council of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the references to the 1st October and the 7th day of November shall be construed as references to the 31st December, 1966 and the 7th day of February, 1967, respectively. (4) The said notice shall be published in two newspapers having circulation in the constituency and republished in them once on or about the 15th October and again on or about the 25th October : Provided that in relation to the preparation of the roll for the first time for the Legislative Council of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the references to the 15th October and the 25th October shall be construed as references to the 15th January and 25th January, 1967, respectively. (4A) The provisions of sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (4) shall apply in relation to revision of the roll for every graduates’ or teachers’ constituency under sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 21 of the Act as they apply in relation to the preparation of such roll subject to the modification that references to the 1st October and the 7th day of November in sub-rule (3) and references to the 15th October and 25th October in sub-rule (4) shall be construed respectively as references to such dates, as may be specified by the Election Commission in relation to each such revision. (5) The provisions of Rules 10 to 27 except clause (c) of sub-rule (1) and clause (c) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 shall apply in relation to graduates’ and teachers’ constituencies as they apply in relation to assembly constituencies : Provided that a claim or an application for the inclusion of a name shall be made in Form 18 or Form 19 as may be appropriate.” 12. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would reveal that there is an obligation upon the Registration Officer to issue a public notice on or before 1st October calling upon every person entitled to be registered in that Roll to send to/deliver at his office before the 7th November, 2007 in form No. 18 or 19 as the case may be. The said notice shall be published in two newspapers having circulation in the constituency and the republication of the same shall be made, once on or about the 15th October and again on or about the 25th October. 13. The counter affidavit filed by Assistant Electoral Registration Officer brings on record, the circular dated 26.10.2007 which was issued to all officers concerned namely, Chief Electoral Officer of Bihar-Patna, Karnataka-Bangalore, Maharashtra- Mumbai and Uttar Pradesh-Lucknow saying that the preparation of Electoral Rolls of the concerned Graduates’ and Teacher’s Constituencies is required to be completed well in advance under Section 21 of the Representation of People Act, 1950. In accordance with Rule 31 (3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 the process of preparation of Electoral Rolls shall commence on or before 1st October, 2007, the qualifying date for such preparation of rolls is 1st November, 2007. Further necessary directions were issued in the said circulars. In accordance with Rule 31 (3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 the process of preparation of Electoral Rolls shall commence on or before 1st October, 2007, the qualifying date for such preparation of rolls is 1st November, 2007. Further necessary directions were issued in the said circulars. Alongwith the circular the time schedule namely prescribed dates of the first public notice under Rule 31(3) and that of subsequent republication and the last date of receipt of application in form No. 18 and 19, period for the preparation of manuscripts and printing of draft roll, draft publication of electoral rolls, period for filing claim and objection, date by which the claims and objections shall be disposed of and supplements be prepared and printed, final publication of Electoral Roll was also prescribed. 14. On 1st October, 2007 the Election Commission of India issued a corrigendum which was issued to all the Chief Electoral Registration Officers including that of Uttar Pradesh in which instead of date before ‘the 6th November, 2007’ was directed to be read as 7th November, 2007. Certain other correction which are not relevant for the present controversy were also issued. 15. In requirement of publication of the notice on or before 1st October, 2007, the Electoral Registration Officer, Lucknow/Commissioner, Lucknow Division Lucknow issued a letter/directions to the District Magistrate, Lucknow Kheri, Barabanki, Sitapur Hardoi, Rai Bareilly and Pratapgarh on 1.10.2007 itself, informing them the dates/programme for preparation/revision of the Electoral Rolls. It is specifically mentioned therein that the aforesaid programme has already been published by him today, by means of public notice under Rule 31 (3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 i.e. 1st October, 2007 (Monday itself). This intimation was thus, duly sent to the District Magistrates saying they may widely circulate the programme by pasting it on notice board in the Collectorate and all the Tahsils and it should be widely publicised in local newspapers besides making them known to all recognised and registered political parties, educational institutions, officers’ associations, clubs etc. One publication made in the newspaper on 2.10.2007 has also been brought on record. 16. One publication made in the newspaper on 2.10.2007 has also been brought on record. 16. The petitioners submit that the requirement of publication of the public notice in the newspaper in the given proforma on or before 1st October, 2007 is a mandatory requirement and if the same has not been done in the manner prescribed then the same cannot be done at all. The consequence of such alleged irregularity is that the entire process of preparation of Electoral Rolls stands vitiated. Further the alleged public notice is not a publication but a news item only. 17. In the Representation of People Act, 1950 Section 21 provides for the preparation of the electoral rolls which says that the electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act. Section 22 is regarding correction of entries in electoral rolls wherein Section 23 is for inclusion of names and electoral rolls and Section 24 provides appeals to the Chief Electoral Officer from any order of the electoral registration officer under Section 22 or Section 23. 18. The electoral roll for Council constituencies is to be prepared under the provision of Part-IV of the aforesaid Act wherein Section 27 (3) relevant for the purpose of elections to the Legislative Council of a State in the graduates’ constituencies and the teachers’ constituencies, says that the State Government concerned may, with the concurrence of the Election Commission, by notification in the official Gazette, specify—(a) the qualification which shall be deemed to be equivalent to that of a graduate of a university in the territory of India, and (b) the educational institutions within the State not lower in standard than that of a secondary school. 19. Sub-clause (4) of Section 27 says that the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 23 shall apply in relation to graduates’ constituencies and teachers’ constituencies as they apply in relation to assembly constituencies. 20. 19. Sub-clause (4) of Section 27 says that the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 18, 21, 22 and 23 shall apply in relation to graduates’ constituencies and teachers’ constituencies as they apply in relation to assembly constituencies. 20. Rule 31 (4A) of the Registration of Electors Rules says that the provisions of sub-rule (3) and sub-rule (4) shall apply in relation to revision of the roll for every graduates’ or teachers’ constituency under sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 21 of the Act as they apply in relation to the preparation of such roll subject to the modification that references to the 1st October and the 7th day of November in sub-rule (3) and references to the 15th October and 25th October in sub-rule (4) shall be construed respectively as references to such dates, as may be specified by the Election Commission in relation to each such revision. 21. Assuming that the publication of the first notice under Rule 31 (3) was to be made on or before 1st October, 2007 and the same was not made as per the argument of the petitioner, on that date, still the question would be ‘whether the non-compliance of the aforesaid provision in itself alone would vitiate the entire process of preparation of Electoral Rolls or it would be a mere irregularity which does not have any effect on the preparation of Electoral Roll which has been done by substantially following the procedure prescribed. Under the Representation of People Act, 1950 as well as Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 no consequence has been given much less any penal consequence or any adverse consequence if first notice which is to be published on or before 1st October, 2007 is published at a later point of time though in the instant case, according to the petitioner it was never published and for the first time the notice was published on 26th October, 2007. 22. The purpose and object of the rules is to provide sufficient opportunity to all concerned to get their names enrolled in the electoral roll, in case they are interested in doing so. The roll is to be prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer not by making his own effort by going door to door finding out the persons who are eligible but it is the burden of the electors to get themselves enrolled by applying in the manner prescribed. The roll is to be prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer not by making his own effort by going door to door finding out the persons who are eligible but it is the burden of the electors to get themselves enrolled by applying in the manner prescribed. If the arguments of the petitioner is accepted that once Electoral Registration Officer fails to publish the first notice in two newspapers on 1st October, 2007 then the whole process of preparation of electoral roll would stand vitiated, it would mean that on failure on the part of Electoral Registration Officer to publish the notice in the two newspapers on 1st October it would seize his authority to prepare the electoral roll for Graduates’ Constituencies and the same would not be allowed to be prepared for the whole year, as the date 1st October would not occur until the next year. It means that the election process for the said year would stand stalled or so to say that the election for which electoral roll is to be prepared would stand stalled or postponed till the notice is published in the next year on 1st October. This is not the intention of the rule nor it can be said to be the correct interpretation of the rule. No interpretation which makes the provisions unworkable and defeats the very purpose of the rule can be said to be the correct construction. Interpretation of a provision is to be made in a manner which furthers the object of the rules. It cannot be laid down that for the fault of the Electoral Registration Officer which may be for a valid reason also, the electoral roll cannot be allowed to be prepared if the first notice is not published in two newspapers on or before 1st October. 23. The aforesaid date has been prescribed only with a view that public at large who are eligible for being enrolled as elector may get knowledge that the registration is opened and they have sufficient opportunity to apply for the same. 23. The aforesaid date has been prescribed only with a view that public at large who are eligible for being enrolled as elector may get knowledge that the registration is opened and they have sufficient opportunity to apply for the same. The very fact that the rule itself envisages not one notice but three notices, namely, first notice to be published on or before 1st October and the republication of notices to be done again on or about 15th October and or about 25th October goes to establish that the provisions give repeated opportunity to all persons, who are entitled to get themselves enrolled so that if they miss first opportunity on notice being published on or before 1st October they may avail the opportunity when the publication of notice takes place on or before 15th October and again on or before 25th October as the period for filing the applications is upto 7th November. Thus, it is clear that for want of publication of the first notice on or before 1st October, it cannot be said that sufficient opportunity would not be available to the persons anxious to get themselves enrolled as electors in graduates’ constituencies. 24. The Electoral Registration Officer has given the necessary information and issued circular dated 26th October, 2007 alongwith detailed programme requiring the publication of the notice on 1st October, 2007 and in fact he says that it was published by him on 1st October, 2007 itself as is evident from his own letter with further direction that it should be widely published in local newspapers for making it known to all persons including recognised and registered political parties, educational institutions, officers’ associations, clubs etc. We have no reason to disbelieve the statement of fact made in the letter/circular issued by Electoral Registration Officer to the District Magistrate of various districts. Even otherwise once the Electoral Registration Officer has also directed the publication of the notice in local newspaper and also directed for wide circulation there appears to be no irregularity in initiating the process of registration of electors. This is sufficient compliance of the rule if the notice was published in the newspaper bringing on record on the next day, it would not mean that there was no publication on 1st October, 2007. 25. This is sufficient compliance of the rule if the notice was published in the newspaper bringing on record on the next day, it would not mean that there was no publication on 1st October, 2007. 25. One of the issue of Dainik Jagran dated 2nd October, 2007 has been brought on record wherein the entire scheme was published giving the dates, place and the time schedule etc. for making application under form No. 18 and 19 as the case may be. Further opportunity was given to all the persons by republishing the notices under the aforesaid Rules. It is admitted to the petitioners also that these subsequent notices were duly published but for the plea that they were republished in a different newspaper, as against the same in which the first notice was published. 26. Even if the subsequent notices were published in different newspapers, it would not vitiate the process, as necessary information was given to the interested electors to get themselves enrolled within a given time nor such republication vitiates any rule. 27. Under the provisions of Representation of People Act and also under the Representation of People Act, 1950 read with Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 a voter list/electoral roll can be corrected even up to the date of nomination, if any person is aggrieved by exclusion of his name or by the inclusion of any name. There is a complete machinery provided therein for getting the grievance redressed. In case a person feels dissatisfied with the decision of the Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, he or she has a right to appeal also. 28. So far as the plea that the application forms were not received and collected as per the requirement of rules as they were not received and collected by Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, in this office, suffice would be to say that the designated officers appointed under the directives of the Election Commission of India by the Electoral Registration Officers were duly authorised to accept and receive the forms at their respective offices and on given dates who after collecting those forms and compiling them were to forward them to the Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer as the case may be. 29. 29. The Commission had vide the said Guidelines also directed for the administrative arrangements to make for preparation of Draft Rolls and sub-para (i) & (iii) of Para 6 thereof is being reproduced for ready reference : (i) Appointment of Designated Officer.—A Designated Officer will be appointed by the ERO to receive applications in his office or in the offices of the AEROs. Such Designated Officers will be of the rank of a Deputy Collector or higher. All SDOs/Revenue Officers within the limits of the constituencies will also be designated as Designated Officer for verifying the applications received from the ERO. (ii) ...... (iii) The names of the Designated Officers alongwith the office where they will be located and the days on which they will be present to receive applications in person shall be notified by the ERO as part of the notices issued under Rule 31(3) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 in the First Schedule.” 30. The provision of Rule 31 (3) itself says that the form be sent to or delivered in the office of Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. In a State where lacs of people are to be enrolled and designated officers have been appointed under the directions of the Election Commission of India, it is practically impossible that the forms should be actually collected/received only in the office of Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer. The appointment of designated officers for the purpose would only mean that forms have been given to them for the convenience of the public and they have to sent those forms or forward those forms to the Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer who is the authority concerned to register the names and correct the electoral roll. This procedure does not offend the provision of Rule 31 (3) or any directive issued by the Election Commission of India. 31. So far the applications being filed not in the prescribed proforma as required under Rules is concerned, Sri O.P. Srivastava rightly says that the writ petition is short of such pleading so as to say that any such illegality has been committed. 31. So far the applications being filed not in the prescribed proforma as required under Rules is concerned, Sri O.P. Srivastava rightly says that the writ petition is short of such pleading so as to say that any such illegality has been committed. Even otherwise, Chief Electoral Officer has to see that forms submitted by the electors are in consonance with the required Rules and we do not have any reason to accept that if they have been filed not on the prescribed proforma, the said question would not be considered by Electoral Registration Officer/Assistant Electoral Registration Officer while considering the enrolment of a person or preparation or the revision of electoral roll. 32. The petitioners have not disclosed that any person or group of persons have felt aggrieved or they have been excluded from being enrolled as a member simply because on 1.10.2007 allegedly, the first notice was not published and thereafter repeated publications were duly made as prescribed under the Rules. In view of the aforesaid rule which permits the correction of the Electoral Roll by excluding or including the name of any person as the case may be till the date of nomination, coupled with the fact, that due publication/publicity was done of all these notices required to be issued, persuade us to hold that the public in general was fully made aware and were given sufficient time for getting themselves enrolled but even if some person or a group of persons were left out, then opportunity of getting themselves enrolled as elector is still with them by applying and getting them enrolled. Also since no aggrieved person has approached, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 33. In the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen and others v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and others, (1985) 4 SCC 689 the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge the inclusion of any name in the roll is a right conferred upon an individual and not upon political party. In paragraph-16 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “Holding the elections to Legislatures and holding them according to law are both matters of paramount importance. In paragraph-16 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : “Holding the elections to Legislatures and holding them according to law are both matters of paramount importance. On the one hand is the individual’s statutory right of franchise, on the other is the constitutional obligation imposed by Article 168 that “For every State there shall be a Legislature...” We find it somewhat odd that, in the instant case, individuals whose rights are alleged to have been violated have not come to the Court at all. Not one out of the eight lacs. Persons who have come to the Court are members of a political party who claim to represent them. While we are on this question, it must be emphasized that election laws do not recognise political parties except in Rule 11 (c) of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1958, and Explanation 1 to Section 77 (1) of the Act of 1951. The right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge the inclusion of any name in the roll is a right conferred upon an individual and not upon any political party. The petitioners are espousing the cause of unnamed and undisclosed persons through a writ petition, which does not even claim to possess a representative capacity.” 34. We thus, do not find any merits in both the writ petitions which are accordingly dismissed. ————