JUDGEMENT 1. Election of sole returned respondent, namely, Nawal Kishore Yadav, for Bihar Legislative Council pertaining to Patna Teachers Constituency for which election was held on 28.4.2008 is subject matter of challenge in the present election petition filed under Sections 80 and 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The result was declared on 30.4.2008 where the petitioner is supposed to have got 2115 votes and the returned candidate 2823 votes. The difference between the petitioner and the returned candidate was of 708 votes. 2. Many statements have been made in the election petition and in support thereof certain documents have been annexed as annexures but the same have a limited reflection on the election petition as a whole because when the list of issues came to be filed by the petitioner as well as the respondent, a preliminary objection was sought to be raised by the respondent that the election petition as framed is not maintainable and the election petition was fit to be dismissed summarily under Section 86(i) of the Act for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 read with Section 100 of the Act. The Court decided, therefore, to examine this legal aspect of the matter after giving an opportunity to both the sides. For true appreciation, therefore, it is desirable that all the proposed issues and supplementary proposed issues filed by the petitioner be reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Whether, the guidelines/instruction issued by the Election Commission of India in exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution for the preparation of electoral roll and for and the conduct of elections has the force of law and non compliance thereof would render the election of the sole respondent void under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951. (ii) Whether for the non-compliance of the guidelines/instructions issued by the Election Commission of India in connection with impugned election, the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951. (ii) Whether for the non-compliance of the guidelines/instructions issued by the Election Commission of India in connection with impugned election, the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951. (iii) Whether for the Registration of unqualified and ineligible, persons as electors by the Electoral Registration Officer in the Voter-list prepared for conducting the impugned election contrary to the guidelines/instruction issued by the Election Commission of India in exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution and votes cast by those unqualified voters, the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the R.P. Act. (iv) Whether the votes cast by unqualified voters has materially affected the result of the election and thus the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the R.P. Act. Supplementary Issues: (i) Whether there is any scope for the Electoral Registration Officer to entertain any fresh application form for Registration of voters in the voter list after expiry of the last date of submission of such form for Registration and after the publication of draft voter list for the impugned election and if so the election of the sole respondent is fit to be set aside under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951. (ii) Whether, the election of the sole respondent from Patna Teachers constituency is fit to be declared void under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951 on the ground that the voter list for the said election was prepared by the Electoral Registration Officer de hors the provisions contained in Sections 27(3)(6), 27(5)(b) and 27(6) of the R.P. Act, 1950 and Article 171(3)(c) of the Constitution of India and if has materially affected the result of election. (iii) Whether failure on the part of the Election Commission of India to entertain the complaint against the inherent irregularities and illegalities in preparation of voter list for the election in question despite direction of this Honbie High Court is sufficient to conclude that the Election Commission of India has failed to discharge its statutory duty to conduct a free and fair election in Patna Teachers constituency and the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void on this ground alone under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951. (iv) Whether the election of the sole respondent is fit to be declared void under the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for having been so declared elected by the votes of unqualified voters who had no right to vote in the said election. (v) Whether the election of the sole respondent is otherwise also bad in law and thus fit to be declared void by this Honble Court. 3. It is also necessary, therefore, to take note of the proposed issues on behalf of the sole respondent, which is also reproduced hereinbelow: (i) Whether the election petition as framed is maintainable? (ii) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under Section 86(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 81, 82 and 117 of the said Act read with Section 100 of the Act? (iii) Whether the election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as no complete cause of action arises out of vague pleadings of general nature and not containing material facts and material particulars? (iv) Whether the allegations as contained in paragraphs 1 to 67 of the election petition are fit to be deleted from the pleadings of election petition as the allegations of commission of illegalities and irregularities in preparation of voter list are justifiable in an election petition being beyond the ambit and scope of Sections 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? (v) Whether the allegations as contained in paragraphs 68 to 70 of election petition are fit to be struck off under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure being not containing an adequate statement of material facts and full particulars and also not containing the prescribed affidavit in Form-25 as required under the mandatory provision of Section 83 of R.P. Act, 1951 read with Rule 94-A of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961? If so, election petition is fit to be dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(a) C.P. Code for not disclosing the complete cause of action? (vi) Whether election petition is not an election petition in the eye of law? If so, whether election petition is fit to be dismissed summarily to prevent the abuse of process of law? 4. The Court has been taken through the election petition, the material brought thereto. The contention of learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent thereafter is that if the election petition is read as a whole then the sum essence of the same is that the election, as such has been called in question, on the ground that the election had been conducted and votes polled on the basis of an electoral roll in which many voters have been enrolled in flagrant violation of the mandatory provisions of law and the rules which relate to the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The allegations primarily relate to the irregularities and illegalities in preparation of the electoral rolls allowing the voters to get on to the rolls after cut-off dates for which the official respondents of the Election Commission have been charged with either connivance or failure in this regard. Contention of the respondent, therefore is that the validity of the electoral rolls cannot be challenged by filing an election petition. The validity of an election has to be tested within the ambit and the provisions of Sections 81 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Since the allegations and the issues proposed on behalf of the petitioner are beyond the scope of Section 81 and Section 100, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to maintain the election petition or adjudicate upon the validity of the election or the result thereof of the returned candidate. 5. Since the allegations and the issues proposed on behalf of the petitioner are beyond the scope of Section 81 and Section 100, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to maintain the election petition or adjudicate upon the validity of the election or the result thereof of the returned candidate. 5. Section 80 of the Act provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this part. This obviously refers to Part-VI which is under the heading "Disputes Regarding Elections". Section 80A of the Act gives the High Court the jurisdiction to try such an election petition. Section 81 then provides that an election petition calling in question any election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section 100 and Section 101 by any candidate at such election or any elector. The explanation to the said section is to the effect that "elector" means a person who was entitled to vote at the election to which the election petition relates. Section 83(1)(a) provides that the election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. Section 86 provides that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Section 81 or Section 82 or Section 117. The grounds for declaring the election to be void are mentioned in Section 100 and the grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected are mentioned in Section 101 of the Act. Section 100(1) of the Act provides; "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. The grounds for declaring the election to be void are mentioned in Section 100 and the grounds for which a candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected are mentioned in Section 101 of the Act. Section 100(1) of the Act provides; "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of opinion (a) that on the date of his election a returned candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this Act of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or (b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent; or (c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected; or (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected (i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interest of the returned candidate by an agent other than his election agent, or (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. 6. Learned counsel for the election petitioner fairly conceded in course of argument that the election petitioner seeks quashing of the election on the grounds mentioned in Section 100(1)(d)(iv). In other words his contention is that the election of the returned candidate namely the respondent has been materially affected by non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether on the averments made in the election petition the grounds referred to in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) is attracted or not. 7. The question for consideration, therefore, is whether on the averments made in the election petition the grounds referred to in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) is attracted or not. 7. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that the Act or any rules or orders made under the Act refers to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and not to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 or the rules or orders made under the said Act. Section 1 of the Act under caption "short title" mentions that this Act may be called as the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There is no dispute between the parties that the provisions for preparation of electoral roll and the manner of filling seats in the Council of the State among other things are provided in the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Part-IV of the Act of 1950 deals with electoral rolls for Council Constituencies. Under Section 27(2)(e) of the 1950 Act the provisions of Sections 15, 16, 18, 22 and 23 shall apply jn relation to local authorities, constituencies as they apply in relation to assembly constituencies. Sections 22 and 23 of the said Act provides for correction of entries in electoral roils and inclusion of names in electoral rolls for the purpose of assembly Constituencies and Section 23(3) provides that no amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry shall be made under Section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election. Section 30 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency. The provisions of Section 22 needs to be noticed for it provides for correction of entries in electoral rolls. Section 30 of the Act excludes the jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain or adjudicate upon any question whether any person is or is not entitled to be registered in an electoral roll for a constituency. The provisions of Section 22 needs to be noticed for it provides for correction of entries in electoral rolls. The Electoral Registration Officer for a constituency is authorized to amend, transpose or delete an entry in the electoral roll of the constituency on any of the grounds mentioned under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the said section and he can exercise such power on either on his own motion or on an application made to him. Such power of the Electoral Registration Officer is, however, to be exercised subject to the general or special direction as may be given by the Election Commission. 8. To cut a long story short the election of the respondent has not been challenged on the ground that he suffered from any disqualification for contesting the election provided either under the Constitution or the Act or 1950 or 1951 or under any rules framed under the Act. The only ground on which the election is challenged is that names of certain teachers were included in the electoral roll illegally and without jurisdiction when they were not otherwise fit to be included. The argument advanced is that for this purpose the Act of 1950 itself made the provision for making the necessary correction and the Act of 1950 is a self-contained Act. The illegality and irregularity committed in the preparation of the electoral roll was a matter to be disposed of within the provisions of the Act of 1950 and any such illegalities or irregularities referred to above could not be a valid ground for setting aside the election of the returned candidate under Section 100 of the Act of 1951. 9. In P.R. Belagali vs. B.D. Jatti ( AIR 1971 S.C. 1348 ) the Supreme Court held that Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act does not entitle the Court in an election petition to set aside any election on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1950 or any rules made thereunder with the exception of Section 16 of the Act of 1950. In an election petition the correctness of the Electoral Roll cannot be gone into. In an election petition the correctness of the Electoral Roll cannot be gone into. The court was further pleased to observe that the entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the amplitude of its provisions show that the entries made in an Electoral Roll of a constituency can only be challenged in accordance with the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any other forum unless the question of violation of the provisions of Constitution is involved. It may be mentioned that under Section 16 of the Act of 1950 a person is disqualified for being registered in an electoral roll if he (a) is not a citizen of India; or (b) is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; or (c) is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections. The averments made in different paragraphs of the present election petition do not contain any allegation with regard to violation of the provisions of Section 16 of the 1950 Act. 10. To reinforce the arguments learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent relies on a recent enough decision of the Honble Supreme Court which is the case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh vs. Nawal Kishore Yadav, (2000)8 SCC 46 . It is contended that a bare reading of the above decision of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh (supra) and the ratio laid down therein fully covers the submissions which have been made at the Bar in opposition to the maintainability of the present election petition. There are identical or similar issues which came to be decided by the Honble Supreme Court on appeal from the decision of the Patna High Court. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the judgment is a complete answer to the election petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. 11. There are identical or similar issues which came to be decided by the Honble Supreme Court on appeal from the decision of the Patna High Court. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent the judgment is a complete answer to the election petition filed on behalf of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act includes and contemplate non-compliance of any part of the Act or Rules as a ground for challenge and in support thereof he relies upon paragraph 21 of a decision rendered in the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1233, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "One of the questions which was debated before us and to which we must now turn, is whether the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers have the force of law under the Acts of 1950 and 1951. There is no provision in either of these Acts which would justify the proposition that the directions given by the Election Commission have the force of law. Election Laws are self-contained Codes. One must look to them for identifying the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are private citizens or public officials. Therefore, in the absence of a provision to that effect, it would not be correct to equate with law, the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers. The Election Commission is, of course, entitled to act ex debito justitiae, in the sense that, it can take steps or direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under an obligation to take under the law. It is, therefore, entitled to issue directions to the Chief Electora Officers. Such directions are binding upon the latter but, their violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the Election Law. To take a simple example, if the Election Commission issues a directive to a Chief Electoral Officer to invite leaders of political parties for a meeting to consider their grievances pertaining to the electoral roll, the failure to hold such a meeting cannot be equated with the failure to comply with the provision of a law. To take a simple example, if the Election Commission issues a directive to a Chief Electoral Officer to invite leaders of political parties for a meeting to consider their grievances pertaining to the electoral roll, the failure to hold such a meeting cannot be equated with the failure to comply with the provision of a law. Leaders of political parties who were asked to be invited by the Election Commission cannot challenge the process of election on the ground that the directive issued by the Election Commission was violated by the Chief Electoral Officers. The question is not whether the directions issued by the Election Commission have to be carried out by the Chief Electoral Officers and are binding upon them. The plain answer is that such directions ought to be carried out. The question is whether, the failure on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to comply with the directions issued by the Election Commission furnishes any cause of action to any other person, like a voter or a candidate, to complain of it. We are of the opinion that the directions issued by the Election Commission, though binding upon the Chief Electoral Officers, cannot be treated as if they are law, the violation of which could result in the invalidation of the election, either generally, or specifically in the case of an individual. In the instant case, the Chief Electoral Officer carried out faithfully the directions issued by the Election Commission. But, even if he had not, he could not be accused of disobeying a law." 12. He also contends that since Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is also a bar, to challenge any election except in the manner provided under the 1951 Act then Section 80 has to be read with Section 329(b) and the same has to be judged within the ambit of Section 100(1)(d)(iv). 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a few other decisions in the regard but the same need not be dealt with in light of the law having been settled by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh (supra). Since no contrary or conflicting opinion has emerged thereafter there is no scope for the High Court to get into any kind of academic discussion on interpretation to be given on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 14. Singh (supra). Since no contrary or conflicting opinion has emerged thereafter there is no scope for the High Court to get into any kind of academic discussion on interpretation to be given on the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 14. The law being what it is, and in view of the ratio laid down in the case of Shyamdeo Pd. Singh (supra) the preliminary objection filed on behalf of the sole respondent does merit consideration. The preliminary objection petition is allowed. The contents of paras 1 to 68 and 71 to 76 of the election petition with Annexures-1 to 18 are struck off. Since no triable issue under Section 81 read with Section 100 of the Act has been made out, the election petition cannot be maintained or adjudicated upon and the same is summarily dismissed under Section 86 of the Act read with Order XVII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. The cost is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. 16. Before parting, however, the Court is constrained to record that the Election Commission of India has been made the repository ot all powers to get a free and fair election conducted, which reflects the will of the majority, in the candidate returned, by the voters voting in an election. But before the same can happen the Election Commission has a duty to maintain the purity of the electoral rolls in terms of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as well as the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. This Court cannot certify that all has been well in preparation of the electoral rolls based on which the election in question came to be held. Since the exercise of power under Section 80 and 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not allow this Court to examine this aspect of the matter the duty is being cast upon the Election Commission. 17. The Court directs that a copy of the decision must be communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer, Bihar as well as the Election Commission of India to enable them to ensure that they take all corrective measures in preparation of electoral rolls before any future election in this regard are held in the State of Bihar.