Judgment : 1. Infraction of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ('the Rules' for short) is alleged by the petitioner who is a candidate contesting from the Idukki Parliament Constituency. The name of the petitioner was entered as 'Joice George' in the nomination paper submitted to be in tune with the electoral roll. The petitioner later filed Ext.P1 representation to the Returning Officer to correct his name as 'Adv.Joice George' in the list of validly nominated candidates. The same was preferred under the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Rules on the premise that the petitioner is popularly known by that name in the Constituency. Ext.P1 representation was entertained by the Returning Officer and the name of the petitioner appeared as 'Adv.Joice George' in Ext.P2 list of validly nominated candidates. 2. The dispute centers around the fact that the name of the petitioner figures only as Serial No.10 in the list of validly nominated candidates. The petitioner contends that his name should figure as Serial No.7 in the list of validly nominated candidates if the names are arranged alphabetically. The petitioner concedes that the names of candidates of recognised political parties figure as Serial Nos.1 to 6 in the list of validly nominated candidates. They gain preference in listing owing to the classification under Section 38(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner asserts that his name has been pushed down to Serial No.10 even though he is legitimately entitled to Serial No.7 in the list as per the alphabetical order. 3. Reliance is placed on Rule 10(3) of the Rules which is as under:- 10. Preparation of list of contesting candidates:- 1) xxxxxxxxxx 2) xxxxxxxxxx 3) If the list is prepared in more languages than one, the names of candidates therein shall be arranged alphabetically according to the script of such one of those languages as the Election Commission may direct. (emphasis supplied) The petitioner maintains that the name 'Adv.Joice George' should figure above the names of other independent candidates if arranged alphabetically. That will be the case whether the script of the languages of Malayalam, Tamil or English is adopted as directed by the Election Commissioner. The petitioner laments that Ext.P3 complaint by his election agent to the Chief Election Commissioner has evoked no response and therefore the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. That will be the case whether the script of the languages of Malayalam, Tamil or English is adopted as directed by the Election Commissioner. The petitioner laments that Ext.P3 complaint by his election agent to the Chief Election Commissioner has evoked no response and therefore the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The reliefs sought for in the writ petition are extracted hereunder:- a. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to effect necessary corrections in Exhibit P2 by placing the petitioner's name as serial No.7 therein as per the mandate of Rules 10(3) read with the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; b. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to enter the petitioner's name as serial NO.7 in the ballot papers as well as in the Electronic Voting Machines invoking the powers under Rule 22(3) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961; c) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to act on Exhibit P3, thereby allowing forthwith; d) grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 5. The contesting respondents point out that the term 'Adv' was prefixed to the name 'Joice George' only for the purpose of distinguishing the petitioner from others. Two candidates have the names 'Joice George' in addition to another having the name 'Joyce George' and hence the necessity to distinguish one from the other. The respondents draw support from Rule 22 (3) of the Rules which is as under:- 22. Form of ballot paper:- (1) xxxxxxx (2) xxxxxxx (3) If two or more candidates bear the same name, they shall be distinguished by the addition of their occupation or residence or in some other manner. (emphasis supplied) It is the case of the respondents that the occupation of the petitioner was added even though his name remained as 'Joice George' in the list of nominated candidates. 6. The Election Commission of India has filed a statement questioning the very maintainability of the writ petition in the midst of election. The embargo contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is highlighted reiterating that the petitioner can challenge the election after. 6. The Election Commission of India has filed a statement questioning the very maintainability of the writ petition in the midst of election. The embargo contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India is highlighted reiterating that the petitioner can challenge the election after. The grounds urged in the writ petition can very well be raised in an election petition under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. After all Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act is a widely worded residual clause often termed as 'catchall- clause' by the Supreme Court. Moreover the postal ballot papers for the service voters in the Constituency have already been printed and dispatched to various destinations. Any interference in the writ jurisdiction would not smoothen the progress of the election proceedings but will only retard them which has to be averted. 7. I heard Mr.K.Jayakumar, Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Raju Joseph, Senior Advocate on behalf of the sixth respondent and Mr.Murali Purushothaman, Advocate on behalf of the Election Commission of India. 8. I think that the writ petition to modify the list of nominated candidates should fail on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties without entering into its merits. Ext.P2 list of nominated candidates contains the names of as many as sixteen candidates whereas only five of them are here in the party array. No doubt only the position of the four candidates would be altered and their serial number changed if the challenge in the writ petition succeeds. But the tinkered list of the nominated candidates will not be the same as Ext.P2 list which was finalised with the names of all the candidates. No cosmetic change in the published list of nominated candidates can be done without notice to all the candidates therein. The possibility of the candidates having supplied a model ballot paper to less educated voters in order to aid them to mark their vote cannot be ruled out. This assumes significance in view of Rule 30(2) of the Rules which is as under:- "30. Form of ballot papers- (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) The names of the candidates shall be arranged on the ballot paper in the same order in which they appear in the list of contesting candidates. This assumes significance in view of Rule 30(2) of the Rules which is as under:- "30. Form of ballot papers- (1) xxxxxxxxx (2) The names of the candidates shall be arranged on the ballot paper in the same order in which they appear in the list of contesting candidates. (emphasis supplied) The identification of the candidate to whom the vote should be marked in the ballot paper may perhaps become difficult for the semi literate voters even if a few serial numbers are jumbled up. No deviation to the election process can be had behind the back of the candidates who are in the poll fray and such an attempt cannot be countenanced." I dismiss the writ petition. No costs.