JUDGMENT R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18-3-2015 passed by the Collector and the District Election Officer, Amravati, directing deletion of the name of 103 voters from the final voters list in respect of Ashok Nagar constituency. 2. This Court had passed an order on 31st March, 2015, as under; "The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18-3-2015 passed by the Collector and the District Election Officer, Amravati, directing deletion of names of 103 voters from the final voters list in respect of Ashok Nagar constituency. The final voters list was published on 21-1-2015. Before publication of final voters list, an appeal was preferred under Rule 23 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1966, to challenge the rejection of objections to the provisional voters list on 15-1-2015. By impugned order, the order rejecting objections is set aside and the direction is given to delete the names of 103 voters from the list of voters in Ashok Nagar constituency. Prama facie, appeal under Rule 23 is available against any decision under Rule 20, Rule 21 or Rule 21A. The power under Rule 23 can be exercised before publication of final voters list under Rule 22. There is no appeal provided against the final publication of voter roll under Rule 22. In view of the aforesaid position, the question is in respect of the power of the respondent to delete the names of voters, after the voters list is finalized under Rule 22. Issue notices for final disposal of the matter, to the respondents, returnable on 15-4-2015. Shri A.D. Sonak, the learned A.G.P., waives service of notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri A.S. Dhore, the learned counsel waives service of notice for the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. The other respondents be served by taking hamdast. In the meantime, the order dated 18-3-2015 passed by the Collector shall remain stayed. Hamdast granted" 3. The objections to the provisional voters list were rejected on 15-1-2015. Thereafter, final voters list was prepared and published on 21-1-2015. On 23-1-2015, an appeal under Rule 23 was preferred challenging the order dated 15-1-2015, rejecting the objection to the inclusion of names of 103 voters. Hamdast granted" 3. The objections to the provisional voters list were rejected on 15-1-2015. Thereafter, final voters list was prepared and published on 21-1-2015. On 23-1-2015, an appeal under Rule 23 was preferred challenging the order dated 15-1-2015, rejecting the objection to the inclusion of names of 103 voters. If the appeal had been preferred prior to final publication of list under Rule 22, then it was maintainable under Rule 23 of the said Act. However, once there is a final publication of roll under Rule 22, there is no question of preferring an appeal under Rule 22. Appeal under Rule 23 is available against any decision of the Registration Officer under Rule 20, Rule 21 or Rule 21A. The appeal is not provided against the final publication of roll under Rule 22. The appeal in this case was, therefore, not maintainable. 4. In spite of issuing notice for final disposal of the matter on 31st March, 2015, making it returnable on 15th April, 2015, no reply is filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The matter was adjourned on 15th April, 2015. Even thereafter no reply has been filed. Keeping in view the nature of controversy involved, it is not possible to extend the time to file reply. The order impugned cannot be sustained. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18th March, 2015, passed by the Collector is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed on 15th January, 2015 by the respondent No. 2 is restored. No order as to costs.