JUDGMENT 1. - In these writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the validity of orders passed by the Electoral Registration Officer, deleting their names from the electoral rolls of the Panchayati Raj Institutions concerned. 2. The writ petitions with a little variance on facts involve identical questions of law, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the same were heard together finally at the admission stage and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The brief facts of each case need to be noticed :Sampat Singh's case (S.B.C.W.P. No. 851/10) (i) The petitioner is a permanent resident of village Moharai, tehsil Jaitaran, district Pali. In the electoral roll of the Assembly Election 2009, the petitioner was registered as voter at Serial No. 662 in Part 21 of electoral roll of Jaitaran Legislative Constituency. A voter identity card has also been issued in his favour by the Election Commission of India on 15.7.08. The petitioner name was also included at Serial No. 234 in the electoral roll of Ward No.9 of Panchayat Circle, Moharai. (ii) After publication of the final electoral roll of Panchayat Circle Moharai for Panchayat Raj Elections 2009, one Shri Jabbar Khan preferred objection against the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll of Panchayat Circle, Moharai stating that the petitioner is presently residing at Madurai and has also been issued a Voter Identity Card by the authority concerned. (ii) After publication of the final electoral roll of Panchayat Circle Moharai for Panchayat Raj Elections 2009, one Shri Jabbar Khan preferred objection against the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll of Panchayat Circle, Moharai stating that the petitioner is presently residing at Madurai and has also been issued a Voter Identity Card by the authority concerned. (iii) The notice issued by the Electoral Registration Officer was responded to inter alia on behalf of the petitioner vide representation dated 5.1.10 stating that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Moharai, he holds the Ration Card and his movable and immovable properties are situated at village Moharai. (iv) However, the respondents have taken the stand that on the objection being received, notice was issued to the petitioner on 31-12-09, which was served by way of pasting in presence of local resident one Shri Shankerlal Meghwal. (iv) However, the respondents have taken the stand that on the objection being received, notice was issued to the petitioner on 31-12-09, which was served by way of pasting in presence of local resident one Shri Shankerlal Meghwal. It is submitted that nobody put appearance in response to the notice and no objections against deletion were filed by the petitioner within three days of publication of the notice before Electoral Registration Officer. (v) The objection raised has been accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer by passing an order dated 6.1.10 in terms that " vk{ksi lgh ik;k x;k Lohd'rh gS " Accordingly, the name of the petitioner has been deleted from the electoral roll of ward no. 9 of Panchayat Circle Moharai by publishing a supplementary electoral roll. Kan Singh & Anr.'s case. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 852/10) (i) The petitioners Kan Singh and Smt. Kavari w/o Kan Singh, residents of village Moharai, tehsil Jaitaran, district Pali are registered voters of Jaitaran Legislative Constituency. The photo identity cards have also been issued in their favour by the Election Commission of India on 8.2.07. In the electoral rolls of the Assembly Election 2009, the petitioners' names were included at Serial No. 823 and 824 in Part 21 of Legislative Constituency. The petitioners names were also included at Serial No. 147 & 148 respectively in the electoral rolls of Ward No. 10 of Panchayat Circle, Moharai. (ii) After publication of the final electoral rolls for Panchayati Raj Elections 2009, one Shri Shiva Ram submitted the abjection against the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the electoral rolls of Panchayat Circle, Moharai stating that the petitioners are presently residing at Madurai and being voters there, have also been issued Voter Identity Card by the competent authority. (iii) The notice issued by the Electoral Registration Officer was responded to on behalf of the petitioners vide representation dated 5.1.10 stating that the petitioners are permanent residents of village Madurai. The hold the Ration Card and their movable and immovable property are situated at village Moharai. It was submitted that the petitioners go out to earn their livelihood but all the family and social functions are being carried out by them at Moharai. (iv) The respondents in their reply have taken the stand similar to the stand taken in Sampat Singh's case (supra). It was submitted that the petitioners go out to earn their livelihood but all the family and social functions are being carried out by them at Moharai. (iv) The respondents in their reply have taken the stand similar to the stand taken in Sampat Singh's case (supra). (v) The objection has been accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer by passing an order in the same terms as in Sampat Singh's case (supra) and the petitioners' name stand deleted from the electoral roll by issuing a supplementary electoral roll. Ganpat Singh's case (S.B.C.W.P. No. 874/10) (i) The petitioner, a permanent resident of village Dhangra, tehsil & district Jalore is a registered voter of Jalore Legislative Constituency. A voter identity card has also been issued in his favour by the Election Commission of India on 19.8.08. In the electoral rolls of the Assembly Election 2009, the petitioner name was included at Serial No. 1175 in Part 7 of electoral rolls of Jalore Assembly Constituency. The petitioner's name was also included at Serial No. 70 in the electoral rolls of Ward No. 11 of Panchayat Circle, Dangra. (ii) After publication of the final electoral rolls for Panchayati Raj Elections 2009, the Election Registration Officer (Panchayat Election), Jalore issued a supplementary electoral roll, whereby the name of the petitioner was deleted from the electoral rolls of Ward No.11 of Panchayat Circle, Dangra. The petitioner represented against the same but no avail. According to the petitioner his name has been deleted from the electoral rolls without issuing notice to him. (iii) However, the respondents have taken the stand in their reply that one Shri Sagar Nath s/o Bharat Nath raised an objection that the petitioner does not reside at village Dangra instead resides at Jalore and has been exercising his franchise there. It was stated that a Voter Identity Card has also been issued in his favour and he has exercised the franchise there in the last State Assembly Elections. It is stated that on objection being filed by Sagar Nath, a notice was pasted on the notice board of Tehsil Jalore, Gram Panchayat, Dangra and S.D.M. Office, Jalore on 23.12.09. It was stated that a Voter Identity Card has also been issued in his favour and he has exercised the franchise there in the last State Assembly Elections. It is stated that on objection being filed by Sagar Nath, a notice was pasted on the notice board of Tehsil Jalore, Gram Panchayat, Dangra and S.D.M. Office, Jalore on 23.12.09. It is stated that after due enquiry, it was found that the petitioner does not reside at village Dangra, therefore, vide order dated 4.1.10 passed by the Electoral Registration Officer (Panchayat) (S.D.M.), Jalore, accepting the objection the petitioner's name was ordered to be deleted from the electoral rolls. A copy of the order dated 4.1.10 has been placed on record as Annexure R/4. Mrs. Sushila Verma's case (S.B.C.W.R No. 883/10) (i) The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of village Chawandiya Kalan, tehsil Jaitaran, district Pali. It is stated that the petitioner's husband is domicile of village Chawandiya Kalan and the name of the petitioner is included in the list of the members contained in the Ration Card issued in the name of Head of the family, elder brother of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner's name was included in the electoral rolls 2009 published by the Electoral Registration Officer for ensuing Panchayati Raj Elections 2009 of village Chawandiya Kalan. The seat for Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Chawandiya was reserved for SC (Woman) and, therefore, the petitioner being eligible was desirous to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch. However, 25.11.09, one Shri Kesa Ram filed objection against the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the electoral rolls on the ground that the petitioner is residing at Pali and also exercising her franchise there. It is stated that without issuing any notice and giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her name has been ordered to be deleted by issuing a supplementary electoral roll/deletion list. (ii) The respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the notice that 25.11.09 was served upon the family member of the petitioner. It is submitted that after due inquiry, the name of the petitioner and her husband were ordered to be deleted from the electoral rolls vide order dated 8.12.09 passed by the Electoral Registration Officer. (ii) The respondents in their reply have taken the stand that the notice that 25.11.09 was served upon the family member of the petitioner. It is submitted that after due inquiry, the name of the petitioner and her husband were ordered to be deleted from the electoral rolls vide order dated 8.12.09 passed by the Electoral Registration Officer. (iii) On 21.12.09, the petitioner made an application for inclusion of her name in the voter list afresh, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 4.1.10 on the ground that in absence of any provision, the order deleting the name of the petitioner cannot be reviewed and the same is appealable under the Rules. Hira Devi's case (S.B.C.W.R No. 994/10) (i) The petitioner, a permanent resident of village Saiyon Ka Bera, tehsil Marwar Junction, district Pali was registered as voter of Marwar Junction Legislative Constituency. A voter identity card has also been issued in his favour by the Election Commission of India on 18.3.09. It is averred that the petitioner's husband is domicile resident of village Saiyon Ka Bera. In the electoral rolls of the Assembly Election 2004 the petitioner's name was included at Serial No. 39 in the electoral rolls of Ward No.6 of village Saiyon Ka Bera and in the electoral rolls of the Assembly Election 2009 at Sr. 579 of Ward No.2 of Village Saiyon Ka Bera. However, the petitioner's name was not included in the electoral rolls published for ensuing Panchayat Elections 2009. In these circumstances, aggrieved by deletion of her name from the electoral rolls, on 9.1.10 the petitioner made a representation to the Electoral Registration Officer, Marwar Junction. The petitioner intended to contest the election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Saran. However, the representation made by the petitioner was not entertained by the Electoral Registration Officer, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. District Collector, Pali under Rule 21 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (in short "the Rules" hereinafter). (ii) It was contented on behalf of the petitioners before the appellate authority that her name has been deleted from the electoral rolls without giving her an opportunity of hearing. (ii) It was contented on behalf of the petitioners before the appellate authority that her name has been deleted from the electoral rolls without giving her an opportunity of hearing. The appellate authority observed that the order impugned under appeal has not been attached with the appeal and that apart, as per Rule 21 A of the Rules of 1994 after publication of notification for elections, no appeal can be entertained against the deletion, transfer or amendment in the electoral rolls. Accordingly, the appeal has been rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 15.1.10. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Mr. Moti Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 851/10 & 852/10, contended that the names of the petitioners have been deleted by the Electoral Registration Officer in most perfunctory manner without holding any inquiry worth the name into the objections raised by unauthorised persons. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners being permanent residents of village Moharai, ordinarily reside at Moharai and, therefore, their names could not have been deleted from the electoral roll. Learned counsel submitted that the Electoral Registration Officer has ordered deletion of the names with mala fide intention to deprive the petitioners from contesting the election to the post of Panch/Sarpanch of Garm Panchayat. Learned counsel submitted that with a priori conclusion to delete the names of the petitioners, reports were obtained from Patwari and straight away without giving the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of hearing by non speaking orders, their name have been deleted from the electoral roll. Learned counsel submitted that after publication of final electoral roll for the ensuing Panchayat Election, the Electoral Registration Officer had no authority to delete the name of the petitioners from the electoral roll on the false objections raised by unscrupulous persons. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been deprived of their franchise by the Electoral Registration Officer without following the procedure laid own under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officers and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1189 . 6. Mr. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lal Babu Hussain and Others v. Electoral Registration Officers and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1189 . 6. Mr. Vijay Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 874/10, has also adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh and further contended that before passing the order impugned deleting the name of the petitioner-Ganpat Singh from the electoral roll, no notice was served upon the petitioner and, therefore, the order impugned passed . in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr. Param Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ petition No. 883/10, while adopting the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh, further submitted that the order impugned was passed by the Electoral Registration Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the Electoral Registration Officer has erred in rejecting the representation made by the petitioner for inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls on the ground that the order cannot be reviewed under the Rules. 8. Mr. K.D.S. Charan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 994/10, submitted that the order impugned is a not speaking order and the same has been passed by the Electoral Registration Officer without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the same deserves to be dismissed. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General urged that the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners after publication of the election programme and the notification inviting the electors to elect the Sarpanch and Panchas for Gram Panchayats being issued, cannot be entertained inasmuch as any interference by this court in the election process already commenced shall be violative of the constitutional mandate in terms of Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Rule 21A of the Rules of 1994 prohibits amendment, transfer or deletion of any entry in the electoral roll and no direction for the inclusion of the name in the electoral roll may be issued under Rule 20 & 21 after the issue of the public notice under Rule 23 or 58 as the case may be, until the completion of election, therefore, no relief as prayed for, could have been granted to the petitioners by this Court at the stage when the elections were so imminent. Learned AAG submitted that now the elections are over and a remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under Rule 21 of the Rules of 1994, and therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioners should be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Learned AAG submitted that Rule 20 of the Rules, permits interim alteration, therefore, the impugned action of the Electoral Registration Officer in deleting the names of the petitioners from the electoral roll on objections filed by the electors, cannot be faulted with. It is submitted that no legal or fundamental right of the petitioners is infringed and, therefore, they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned AAG further submitted that the objection preferred by the objectors were inquired into by the Electoral Registration Officer and notices were issued to the petitioners, however, they did not appear before the Electoral Registration Officer in pursuance thereof and, therefore, the decisions taken by the respective Electoral Registration Officers, after due consideration of the objections raised and the material on record, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or violative of principles of natural justice. 10. Replying the arguments of learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel Mr. Moti Singh submitted that the bar as to the jurisdiction of the court contained in Article 243-0 in regard to Panchayati Raj Election is the bar to ordinary jurisdiction of the courts and not to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this regard learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of S. Fakruddin and others etc. v. The Government of A.P. and Others, AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 37 . In this regard learned counsel has relied upon a Full Bench decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of S. Fakruddin and others etc. v. The Government of A.P. and Others, AIR 1996 Andhra Pradesh 37 . Learned counsel submitted that even according to the respondents in view of the provisions of Rule 21A of the Rules of 1994, no amendment, transfer or deletion of any entry in the electoral roll or inclusion of the name in the electoral roll is permissible after issuing the public notice under Rule 23 of the Rules or 58, as the case may be until the completion of the election, therefore, the petitioners who have been deprived from exercising their franchise and to contest the election by deleting their names from the Electoral roll, a day before issue of notification for election cannot be rendered remedy-less. 11. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. Article 243-0 may be beneficially quoted:- "Art. 243-0. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution - (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, made or purporting to be made under article 243K, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the Legislature of a State." 13. Indisputably, as per the mandate of Article 243-0(b) election to any Panchayati Raj Institution cannot be questioned except by way of election petition presented to such authority as provided by or under the relevant statute. But then, the question comes for consideration of this Court is as to whether the preparation of the electoral rolls is also part of the election process within the meaning of Article 243-0(b) and whether after issue of the notification for election this Court is precluded from exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India altogether in view of the bar contained in Article 243-0? 14. 14. As a matter of fact, the question that Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India does not bar judicial review by the High Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is no more res integra. 15. In the matter of Harnek Singh v. Charanjit Singh, AIR 2006 SC 52 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that "Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India mandates that all election disputes must be determined only by way of election petition. This by itself may not per se bar judicial review which is basic structure of the Constitution, but ordinarily such jurisdiction would not be exercised." 16. In Pata Ram Bheel's case (supra), a Bench of this court while considering the question as to whether Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, which is pari materia to the provisions of Article 243-0, puts a complete & absolute bar in considering any matter relating to Municipal Election on any ground even before the publication of the notification for holding Municipal Elections by the Court, this court held : "Thus, we are of the opinion that the bar created under Article 243ZG of the Constitution will not be attracted in a case where the action of the Election Commission is found to have affected the very purity or probity of election cutting at very root of the democratic process in gross violation of public law rights. In other wards (sic), in such a situation, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable before the Election process has commenced but it will have to be taken care that such a judicial intervention would be available only in a case where it does not disturb the mandate of the Constitution to hold the election before the completion of the tenure. Thus. it is imperative on the State Government as well as the State Election Commission to complete the process of delimitation of constituencies and reservation of seats at least about an year before or any case, six months before, so that the parties pre-judicially affects may have an opportunity to seek redress. If the Election Commission fails in discharge of their obligation in this regard, it is always open for a citizen to seek mandamus from this Court against the State Election Commission as well as the State perform their statutory obligation." (emphasis added) 17. If the Election Commission fails in discharge of their obligation in this regard, it is always open for a citizen to seek mandamus from this Court against the State Election Commission as well as the State perform their statutory obligation." (emphasis added) 17. In S. Fakruddin's case (supra), a Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court while considering the ambit and scope of the bar as to jurisdiction of the court in terms of Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India, after due consideration of various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed : "The preponderance of the judicial opinion and the view of the Supreme Court as expressed in various pronouncements leave no doubt in our mind notwithstanding the bar that the bar is to the ordinary jurisdiction under Act. 226 of the Constitution and Article 136 thereof. It is not necessary for us, therefore, to pronounce that Article 243 (0) is unconstitutional; simply it does not take away the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the validity of any law relating to the elections including the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under Article 243K of the Constitution. As respect challenge to the election or any intermediary stage in case there is an alternative, effective and independent mechanism provided, the Court shall abstain to interfere except on jurisdictional errors i.e., when infirmity is based on violation of constitutional mandate, mala fides, non-compliance with Rules of natural justice and perversity. It will be so far the reason of prudence as well as defence to the legislation by the Parliament in exercise of its constituent power." (emphasis added). 18. In Kishansingh Tomar v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 352 , the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the effect of Article 243 U of the Constitution of India and the opinion expressed in the Special Reference with respect to the Gujarat Assembly Election matters, 2002(8) SCC 237 and Laxmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzman, 1985(4) SCC 689 , observed: "19. From the opinion expressed by thus Court, it is clear that the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. From the opinion expressed by thus Court, it is clear that the State Election Commission shall not put forward any excuse based on unreasonable grounds that the election could not be completed in time. The Election Commission shall try to complete the election before the expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in clause (5). Any revision of electoral rolls shall be carried out in time and if it cannot be carried out within a reasonable time, the election has to be conducted on the basis of the then existing electoral rolls. In other words, the Election Commission shall complete the election before the expiration of the duration of five years' period as stipulated in clause (5) and not yield to situations that may be created by vested interests to postpone elections from being held within the stipulated time. 20. The majority opinion in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman held that certain claims and objections are not finally disposed of while preparing the electoral rolls or even assuming that they are not filed in accordance with law cannot arrest the process of election to the legislature. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral rolls which are in force on the last date for making nomination. It is true that the Election Commission shall take steps to prepare the electoral rolls by following due process of law, but that too, should be done timely and in no circumstances, shall be delayed so as to cause gross violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Article 243-U of the Constitution. 21. It is true that there may be certain man-made calamities, such as rioting or breakdown of law and order, or natural calamities which could distract the authorities from holding elections to the municipality but they are exceptional circumstances and under no (sic other) circumstance would the Election Commission be justified in delaying the process of election after consulting the State Government and other authorities. But that should be an exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of the municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243-U, it is clear the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. But that should be an exceptional circumstance and shall not be a regular feature to extend the duration of the municipality. Going by the provisions contained in Article 243-U, it is clear the period of five years fixed thereunder to constitute the municipality is mandatory in nature and has to be followed in all respects. It is only when the municipality is dissolved for any other reasons and the remainder of the period for which the dissolved municipality would have continued is less than six months, it shall not be necessary to hold any elections for constituting the municipality for such period." (emphasis added) 19. Therefore, without any further dilation on the question, it can be safely concluded that the bar contained in Article 243-0 of the Constitution bars the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts but not the power of judicial review of this court in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but ordinarily, such jurisdiction would not be exercised. If the interference by the court results in delaying or postponement of the election defeating the mandate of constitutional provision providing for completion of the election before the expiry of the term of the elected body then, the court should always refrain from interfering with the election process. 20. Coming to the question as to whether the preparation of the election rolls is part of the election process contemplated under Article 243-0, it is to be noticed that the preparation of the electoral rolls is continuous process and in terms of the provisions of Rule 19 of the Rules, the roll for any ward or constituency of Panchayati Raj Institution shall be revised intensively or summarily or partly intensively and partly summarily, as the Election Commission may direct with reference to qualifying date i.e. 1 January of the year in which it is so revised. Therefore, the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls of Panchayati Raj institution has nothing to do with particular election. 21. Therefore, the preparation and revision of the electoral rolls of Panchayati Raj institution has nothing to do with particular election. 21. In the matter of Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1986 SC 103 , after consideration of various previous decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India which excludes the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain any matter relating to election to either House of Parliament or to the House either House of Legislature of State, the court observed that: "We are not prepared to take the view that preparation of electoral rolls is also a process of election. We find support or our view from the observations of Chandrachud, C.J. In Lakshmi Charan Sen's case, AIR 1985 SC 1233 (supra) that "it may be difficult, consistently with that view, to hold that preparation and revision of electoral roll is a part of 'election' with the meaning of Article 329(b)". In a suitable case challenge to the electoral roll for not complying with the requirements of the law may be entertained subject to the rule indicated in Ponnuswami's case, AIR 1952 SC 64 (supra). But the election of a candidate is not open to challenge on the score of the electoral roll being defective. Holding the election to the Legislature and holding them according to law are both matters of paramount importance. Such elections have to be held also in accordance with a time bound programme contemplated in the Constitution and the Act. The proviso added in Section 22(2)(21(2) of the Act of 1950 is intended to extend cover to the electoral rolls in eventualities which otherwise might have interfered with the smooth working of the programme. These are the reasons for which we came to the conclusion that the electoral roll of 1979 had not been vitiated and was not open to be attacked as invalid." (emphasis added). 22. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid, in considered opinion of this court, the contention of the learned AAG that the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners challenging the deletion of their names from the electoral rolls by the Electoral Registration Officer is not maintainable in view of the bar contained under Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India, is devoid of any merit. 23. 23. The next question comes for consideration of this court is regarding availability of alternative remedy of appeal against the orders impugned. It is true that the orders impugned passed by the Electoral Registration Officer in exercise of the power conferred by Rule 20 of the Rules are appealable under Rule 21 of the Rules and a person aggrieved by such order may prefer the appeal before the Collector against such order within 15 days from the date of the order. But then, admittedly, in the instant case, the notification inviting the electors to electors to elect the Panch/Sarpanch of concerned Panchayati Raj Institution was issued by the State Election Commission on 7.1.10 and therefore, the petitioners could not have assailed the orders by way of appeal before the appellate authority in view of bar contained under Rule 21-A of the Rules which provides that after issuance of the public notice for election till the completion of election, the Electoral registration officer or the electoral rolls. In this view of the matter, the appeal, if any preferred by the petitioners would have been a exercise in futility. As a matter of fact, the appeal preferred by one of the petitioner, Hira Devi(Writ Petition No.994/10) has been dismissed by the appellate authority only on this count. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be non suited on the ground that the statutory remedy of appeal Is available to them under the Rules. 24. This takes this court to consider the validity of the orders Impugned passed by the Electoral Registration Officer in the present matters. 25. In Sampat Singh and Kan Singh's case(supra), admittedly the petitioners were registered voters of Jaitaran Legislative Constituency and they were also holding the voters identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and their names also appeared in the final electoral rolls of Panchayat Circle, Moharai published in accordance with the Rules. From a perusal of the objection filed by Jabbar Khan objecting the inclusion of the name of Sampat Singh it does not transpire that the objector is a registered voter of any ward of Panchayat Circle, Moharai. Similar is the position with regard to Shiva Ram on whose objection, the name of petitioners Kan Singh and Smt. Kavan have been deleted from the electoral rolls of Ward No.10 of panchayat circle, Moharaj. Similar is the position with regard to Shiva Ram on whose objection, the name of petitioners Kan Singh and Smt. Kavan have been deleted from the electoral rolls of Ward No.10 of panchayat circle, Moharaj. Be that as it may, no evidence was produced by the objectors in Support of the objections raised so as to establish that the petitioners are registered as voters in the election rolls of Moharaj Legislative Constituency. On what information collected the report of Patwari is based is also not disclosed. Moreover, the objection has been accepted by the Electoral Registration Officer in most perfunctory manner by passing a non speaking order, as noticed above. It is true that the Electoral Registration Officer is entitled to make interim alteration in the electoral rolls in terms of Rule 20 of the Rules but then, while entertaining an objection and deleting the name of an existing voter from the electoral rolls, fair opportunity should be afforded to the person affected and a proper inquiry should be conducted to verify the correctness of the objection raised. No such exercise appears to have been taken by the Electoral Registration Officer and the names of the petitioners have been deleted in perfunctory manner vide order dated 6.1.10 when the elections are scheduled to commence on 7.1.10. Strangely enough, in defiance of the provisions of Rule 20(1), no notice was served upon the petitioners against the action proposed to be taken in terms of Rule 20 of the rules. Thus, the entire proceedings taken by the Electoral Registration Officer does not inspire confidence, the finding arrived at is ex facie perverse and the orders impugned passed in gross violation of the provisions of the Rules and the principles of natural Justice deserve to be quashed and set aside. 26. In Ganpat Singh's case (supra) the name of the petitioner has been deleted on the basis of objection raised by one Sagar Nath, a notice was pasted on the notice board of Tehsil, Jalore Gram Panchayat, Danura and S.D.M. Office, Jalore on 23.12.09, but admittedly, no notice was served upon the petitioner personally and, therefore, the order impugned passed without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in defiance of mandate of Rule 20(1) of the Rules and in gross violation of elementary principle of natural justice, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 27. 27. In Smt. Sushila Verma's case(supra) also, from the material placed on record by the respondents, it does not transpire that before passing the order impugned accepting the objection raised and deleting the name of the petitioner from the electoral rolls, she was never served with the notice by the Electoral Registration Officer. It is not disputed before this court - that while deleting the name of the petitioner from the electoral rolls, no speaking order was passed by the Electoral Registration Officer. There is nothing on record to show that any inquiry worth the name was ever conducted by the Electoral Registration Officer so as to ascertain the correctness of the objection raised. In this view of the matter, for the parity of the reasons detailed supra, the order impugned passed in Sushila Verma's case also deserves to be quashed and set aside. 28. Lastly, coming to the order passed in Hira Devi's case(supra), it is to be noticed that though the petitioner was entered as a voter in the electoral rolls of Assembly Election-2004 and 2009 but she was not included as voter in the electoral rolls of the Panchayat Circle published for ensuing Panchayat Election 2009. Thus, as a matter of fact, it is a case of non inclusion of the name in the electoral rolls and not the deletion of the name of the existing voter from the electoral rolls in terms of provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority as not maintainable in view of the bar created by Rule 21A of the Rules. The elections of the concerned Panchayat Raj Institution are already over and the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application before the Electoral Registration Officer for inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls. Needless to say that if any application is made by the petitioner in the prescribed form, the same shall be considered by the Electoral Registration Officer for inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls in accordance with law. 29. In the result, the writ petitions No. 851/10, 852/10, 874/10 and 883/10 are allowed. The orders impugned therein are quashed. The supplementary electoral rolls issued by the competent authority to the extent of deletion of the names of the petitioners shall also stand quashed. 29. In the result, the writ petitions No. 851/10, 852/10, 874/10 and 883/10 are allowed. The orders impugned therein are quashed. The supplementary electoral rolls issued by the competent authority to the extent of deletion of the names of the petitioners shall also stand quashed. The names of the petitioners shall stand restored to the electoral rolls of respective Panchayati Raj Institutions. However, it will not preclude the Electoral Registration Officer concerned from initiating appropriate proceedings afresh regarding deletion of the names of the petitioners in accordance with law. The writ petition No. 994/10 is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner makes a fresh application for inclusion of her name in the electoral rolls of the Panchayati Raj Institution of Panchayat Circle, Saran, the same shall be considered by the Electoral Registration Officer in accordance with law. No order as to costs.Four Writ Petitions Allowed and Fifth Disposed of as Above. *******