1.This writ application has been filed challenging the order dated 25.4.2009, passed by the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Case No. Election 2/07, filed on behalf of Sanju Kumari. Sanju Kumari stood for election for the post of a Ward Member in the Biharsharif Municipal Corporation Elections held in the year 2007. The ground for challenge of the said election is that it is alleged that 800 voters of Ward No. 39 have been shifted to Ward No. 37 which has caused tremendous prejudice to the petitioner as it was done at a belated stage after scrutiny of the nomination papers. 2. The facts are that the date of filing the nomination for the candidates was fixed in between 27.4.2007 to 5.5.2007. The scrutiny was to be held in between 6.5.2007 and 7.5.2007. It is alleged that the final voters list was varied and 800 voters were shifted to Ward No. 37 on 27.4.2007. 3. To substantiate the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Annexure-1. Annexure-1 is the draft voters list showing that there are 4081 voters of Ward No. 37. It is said that the said list was published on 27.4.2007. The counsel thereafter refers to Annexure-9 which is also a voters list published on 27.4.2007 showing that the total member of voters of Ward No. 37 are 4924. It has been argued vehemently that there was no occasion to publish the list on 27.4.2007 showing that there are only 4081 voters and on the same day publish another list showing the voters to be 4924. The voters of Ward No. 37 were taken out from Ward No. 39 and clubbed with the voters list of Ward No. 37. It is argued that any transportation of voters on the day of filing of nomination would render the entire election process illegal and it has to be set aside. It would appear from the records of the case and specifically the stand of the respondent no. 3 as well as the respondent no. 1, that certain objections were raised regarding voters list which shows that there were 4081 voters in Ward No. 37 of the Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the objection, an inquiry was made and the southern boundary as shown in the gazette notification no. 1 was found to be wrong due to clerical mistake. 1, that certain objections were raised regarding voters list which shows that there were 4081 voters in Ward No. 37 of the Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the objection, an inquiry was made and the southern boundary as shown in the gazette notification no. 1 was found to be wrong due to clerical mistake. The District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif vide his letter dated 10.4.2007 sought permission from the Election Commission to rectify the clerical error in the northern boundary of Ward No. 39 and southern boundary of Ward No. 37. These letters are annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexures A,B and C. Thereafter a revised gazette no.28 dated 22.4.2007 regarding the delimitation of Ward Nos. 37 and 39 was published by which about 800 to 900 voters from Ward No. 39 were transposed in Ward No. 37 as per the boundary mentioned in the revised gazette. Regarding the common date 27.4.2007 which has been highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been stated that after submission of the report of the District Magistrate to the State Election Commission the header portion of electoral roll was printed as per programme given by the Commission in Annexure-X and the date of list publication was accordingly printed as 27.4.2007 having the same header, but the actual date of printing in both was not the same. Because of the computer the date was the same with respect to Annexures 1 and 9. It cannot be accepted by this Court that just because the date of the two lists was 27.4.2007, it should be inferred that there was some hanky panky in the publication of the voters list. This finding of the Court is because of the fact that the counter affidavit discloses the manner and the reasons which resulted in the transposition of the voters from one ward to the other. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which deals with the procedure by which the electoral roll are prepared and Section 22 the procedure in which the electoral roll is corrected. 5. Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read as follows: 1[21. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 which deals with the procedure by which the electoral roll are prepared and Section 22 the procedure in which the electoral roll is corrected. 5. Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read as follows: 1[21. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls.-(1) 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.] 2[(2) The said election roll- (a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date- (i) before each general election to the House of People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State; and (ii) before each bye-election to fill a casual vacancy in a seat allotted to the constituency; and (b) shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by Election Commission: Provided that if the electoral roll is not revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected.] (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Election Commission may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit: Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the completion of the special revision so directed. 3[22. 3[22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.-If the electoral registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency- (a) is erroneous or defective in any particular, (b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residence within the constituency, or (c) should be detected on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general or special direction, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry: Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on the ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him.] 6. This Court finds that the procedure and the manner in which the electoral roll was prepared was in accordance with Sections 21 and 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and as such, it cannot be said that there was a violation of Sections 21 and 22 of the Act in view of the fact that after the tentative electoral roll was prepared, objections were filed specifically with respect to change of boundary of Ward No. 37 and 39 which led to a revised electoral roll. No illegality in the procedure has been pointed out except to say that both the rolls were prepared on the same date i.e. 27.4.2007. This aspect has already been explained in the order. 7. I would also like to make clarifications on the factual aspect. Final voters list was revised by gazette no. 28 dated 22.4.2007. The date of filing a nomination was 27.4.2007 to 5.5.2007 and the date of scrutiny was on 6.5.2000 to 7.5.2000. This aspect has already been explained in the order. 7. I would also like to make clarifications on the factual aspect. Final voters list was revised by gazette no. 28 dated 22.4.2007. The date of filing a nomination was 27.4.2007 to 5.5.2007 and the date of scrutiny was on 6.5.2000 to 7.5.2000. Thus the petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the voters of Ward No. 39 had already been transposed to Ward No. 37 and, therefore, it cannot be argued that he was prejudiced in any manner by the said transposition of the voters. The reason for transposition cannot be faulted with as it relates to the fixing the boundary of the area of Ward Nos. 37 and 39. There can be no motive attached to the said refixation of the boundary. Infact the petitioner has not challenged the fact that the boundary has wrongly been fixed, rather what is sought to be challenged is that the transposition has taken place at a delayed stage of the election process and it has been done to give benefit to certain other persons who were standing for elections and may have possibly got the benefit by such change in the electoral roll. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner somewhat heatedly assailed the order of the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif on the ground that he had not taken into account that there were other procedural defects in the election process. However, on perusal of the order of the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif it would appear that the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif has taken into account all the materials that were placed before him to decide the issues framed in the suit. I find that infact no grounds have been made out on this aspect of the matter in the writ application. 9. I may also refer to certain decisions placed before this Court by the private respondents in this case. Counsel for the private respondents submits that once the petitioner had participated in the election process, he could not challenge the said process on the ground that the voters list was bad especially in view of the fact that the challenge was not made at the time when the electoral roll was published. This is the view of this Court in the case of Nasimuddin Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. This is the view of this Court in the case of Nasimuddin Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2006 (1) PLJR 84] while dealing with the elections held under the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. 10. In the case of Baidyanath Panjira Vs. Sita Ram Mahto [ AIR 1970 SC 314 ] which is again a case which traveled from the Patna High Court to the Supreme Court indicates, that the Apex Court has held that under Clause 23A of the Representation of the People Act the names of the electors cannot be included after the last date for making the nomination. In the present case the last date for filing of the nomination was 7.5.2007 as such, it cannot be said that the electoral roll transposing the voters of Ward No. 39 to Ward No. 37 was illegal or unjustified or for any ulterior motive. 11. In the result, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the order of the Sub-Judge-1, Nalanda at Biharsharif as contained in Annexure-11. This writ application is dismissed.