ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of the respondents in publishing the Electoral Roll without following the procedural instructions and rules pertaining to the Ward No.78 of Respondent Corporation with wrong entries in the total BC voters as 1026 instead of around 2500 voters and SC voters as 431 instead of around 2000 and not considering the objections submitted by the petitioners in the form of representations dated 10.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 19.02.2020 and 07.02.2020 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Representations of the petitioners 10.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 19.02.2020, correct the wrong entries in electoral roll of ward number 78 of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and take steps to rectify the same. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxisst). Petitioner No.2 is ex-councilor of the Ward No.78. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are voters of the Ward. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the ordinary elections to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation are to be held shortly along with other Municipal Corporations. Respondent Nos.2 issued several instructions for preparation and publication of ward-wise photo electoral rolls through various notifications. The Commissioners of Municipal Corporations are authorized to prepare and publish the same vide Circular No.84/Sec-F1/2019 dated 28.01.2020. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and Rules framed thereunder, the entries in the Assembly Electoral rolls published with reference to 01.01.2019 as qualifying date and updated up to 23.12.2019 are to be adopted for preparation of ward-wise photo electoral rolls of the Municipal Corporations. 4. In view of the above instructions, respondent No.3 submitted his report vide number 366/2020/Gvmcele 2020/D1 dated 03.02.2020 to respondent No.2, wherein the details of ST, SC and BC voters are given. In the said report, with regard to ward number 78, it has been shown that total ST voters are 151, total SC voters are 432, total BC voters are 1026 and other voters are 8304. It is contended that before publishing the electoral roll, the respondents did not follow any circular issued by respondent No.2. In the said report, with regard to ward number 78, it has been shown that total ST voters are 151, total SC voters are 432, total BC voters are 1026 and other voters are 8304. It is contended that before publishing the electoral roll, the respondents did not follow any circular issued by respondent No.2. According to the circular issued by respondent No.2 dated 28.01.2020 the Electoral Rolls should be published on the notice board of ward of concerned area etc., but the electoral roll has not been published with regard to ward No.78. According to Rule 5 (E) of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Preparation and Publication of Electoral Rolls Rules, 2001, a copy of each separate list of the electoral roll should supply free of cost to every political party for which a symbol has been exclusively reserved by the Election Commission. 5. It is further alleged that wrong entry was made in the report submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 03.02.2020 with regard to total BC and SC voters of the ward number 78. There are more than 2000 BC voters, but the number of B.C voters has been shown as 1026, and around 1500 SC voters has been shown as OC voters. The wrong entry with regard to the BC and SC voters is having serious repercussions in allotment of reservations of the ward. In view of the said wrong entry, the petitioner submitted representations to respondent No.3 on 31.01.2020 and 19.02.2020. According to the circular issued by respondent No.1 dated 11.01.2020, respondent No.2 has to publish draft electoral roll of B.C voters in Form I in the Municipal Office, RDO’s Office, Tahsildar office and copy of the same has to be supplied to all political parties registered with the State Election Commission, Andhra Pradesh. But, the draft electoral roll has not been published and not supplied to the registered political parties. However, the petitioners submitted their objections in the form of representation to respondent No.3. It is the duty of the respondents to follow the instructions given by the election authority and Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration. Due to non implementation of the circular and due to non considering the representation of the petitioners with regard to the rectification of the wrong entries made with regard to BC and SC voters, the BC people may lose one seat. Due to non implementation of the circular and due to non considering the representation of the petitioners with regard to the rectification of the wrong entries made with regard to BC and SC voters, the BC people may lose one seat. Though there is a specific direction to attend the objections and claims given by the general public, respondent No.3 did not attend so far, such inaction is illegal and arbitrary. 6. Besides the above irregularities or mistakes, it is also contended that the respondents failed to comply with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short “the Act 1950”) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and requested to issue a direction to rectify the mistakes pointed out by the petitioners. None of the respondents filed counter affidavit. 7. At the stage of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions urged in the petition, while specifically contending that the defects pointed out in the writ petition will cause serious prejudice not only to the voters, but also to the person(s) of independent or political parties who are contesting in the elections and due to non-rectification of the wrong entries made with regard to BC and SC voters, the BC people may lose one seat. Therefore, the respondents in utmost haste and in callous manner prepared the voters list, defeating the democratic principles to elect a person of their choice by the electors/voters. It is further contended that, failure to grant minimum 15 days time while calling for objections, is totally violative of Rule 12 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960. Apart from that, though the de-limitation is completed, the bar under Article 243 (z)(g) of the Constitution of India will not come in the way, since these electoral rolls are for the Municipal Corporation governed by Section 12 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. 8. According to Section 12 of the GHMC Act, till issue of notification, the electoral rolls can be amended and finally voters list can be published. Therefore, the Bar under Article 243 (z) (g) of the Constitution of India will not come in the way to these petitioners to claim relief in this writ petition and requested to issue a direction to the respondents to rectify the mistakes pointed out by the petitioners, considering their objections. 9. Therefore, the Bar under Article 243 (z) (g) of the Constitution of India will not come in the way to these petitioners to claim relief in this writ petition and requested to issue a direction to the respondents to rectify the mistakes pointed out by the petitioners, considering their objections. 9. Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Urban Development and Municipal Administration contended that an appeal is provided under the Rules and when a statutory appeal is provided, the petitioners are bound to exhaust their remedy by way of appeal, but not by way of writ petition, which is purely a discretionary relief, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Whereas, learned counsel for the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation/Respondent No.3 supported the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Urban Development and Municipal Administration, while refuting the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 11. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the defects pointed out by the petitioners in the voters list cause prejudice to the rights of any electors or political party or the candidates to be contested in the ensuing election of the Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation? (2) Whether the Bar under Article 243 (z)(g) of the Constitution of India disentitles to claim relief in the writ petition. POINT No.1: 12. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, when the electoral draft rolls are prepared, fifteen days minimum time shall be given to public, including political parties calling for their objections. In the present facts of the case, a wrong entry was made in the report submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 03.02.2020 with regard to total BC and SC voters of the ward number 78. There are more than 2000 BC voters, but the number of BC voters has been shown as 1026, and around 1500 SC voters has been shown as OC voters. The wrong entry with regard to the BC and SC voters is having serious repercussions in reservations of the ward. 13. Rule 12 of Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 deals with period for lodging claims and objections. The wrong entry with regard to the BC and SC voters is having serious repercussions in reservations of the ward. 13. Rule 12 of Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960 deals with period for lodging claims and objections. According to it, every claim for the inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry therein shall be lodged within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of the roll in draft under Rule 10, or such shorter period of not less than fifteen days as may be fixed by the Election Commission in this behalf; provided that the Election Commission may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the period in respect of the constituency as a whole or in respect of any part thereof. 14. A wrong entry was made in the report submitted by respondent No.3 to respondent No.2 on 03.02.2020 with regard to total BC and SC voters of the ward number 78. There are more than 2000 BC voters, but the number of BC voters has been shown as 1026, and around 1500 SC voters has been shown as OC voters. This itself is suffice to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a direction to the respondents to rectify the mistakes in the voters list. Accordingly, the point is held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. POINT No.2: 15. One of the major contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation before this Court is that, once election process is commenced, this Court cannot exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the Bar under Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India, as Article 243-ZG of the Constitution of India has created an interdict on the power of the High Court to interfere with the election process of Municipal Corporation, as the preparation of electoral rolls is a part of election process. 16. In “Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K. M. Hassan Ussaman, 1985 AIR 1233” the Apex Court held that, the fundamental error from which the writ petition suffers is this: The fact that the revision of electoral rolls, either intensive or summary, is undertaken by the Election Commission does not have the effect of putting the electoral roll last published in cold storage. The revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process which has to go on, elections or no elections. For example, the revision of electoral rolls has to be undertaken under Section 21 of the Act 1950, whether or not an election is impending. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 provides that 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". Sub-section (2) of Section 21 provides for the revision of the electoral roll prepared under sub-section (1). The proviso, which is important, says that if the electoral roll "is not revised as aforesaid", the validity or continued operation of the 'said' electoral roll shall not be affected. The controversy whether the proviso governs clause (b) of Section 21(2) only or whether, it applies to clause (a) of that section also is futile, though it may be interesting from the point of view of a textbook writer on the "Interpretation of Statutes". The crux of the matter is that if an electoral roll in not revised, its validity and continued operation remain un-affected, at-least in a class of cases. That exemplifies an important principle which applies in the case of electoral rolls. Section 21(3) of the Act 1950 confers upon the Election Commission the power to direct a special revision of the electoral roll. The proviso to that sub-section also says that until the completion of the special revision so directed, the electoral roll for the time being in force shall continue to be in force. That proves the point that election laws abhor a vacuum. Insofar as the electoral rolls are concerned, there is never a moment in the life of a political community when some electoral roll or the other is not in force. Section 23(3) of the Act 1950 also points in the same direction. Under that provision, no amendment, transposition or deletion of an entry can be made under Section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency can be given, after the last date for making nomination for an election in the particular constituency. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date for making nominations. The election has to be held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date for making nominations. If that were not so, the easiest expedient which could be resorted to for the purpose of postponing an election to the Legislature would be to file complaints and objections, omnibus or otherwise, which would take days and months to decide. It is not suggested that claims and objections filed in the prescribed form should not be decided promptly and in accordance with law. But, the important point which must be borne in mind is that whether or not a revision of an electoral roll is undertaken, and, if undertaken, whether or not it is completed, the electoral roll for the time being in force, must hold the field. Elections cannot be postponed for the reason that certain claims and objections have still remained to be disposed of. Then, claimants and objectors could even evade the acceptance of notices and thereby postpone indefinitely the decision thereon. The holding of elections to the Legislatures, which is a constitutional mandate, cannot be made to depend upon the volition of interested parties." 17. No doubt, as per the rules of The Representation of the People Act and in view of the constitutional provision under Article 243 (z)(g), this court shall not normally interfere with the election process. But, the electoral rolls are prepared based on the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, which is a special enactment, governing the preparation of elector rolls. 18. Section 12 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act reads as follows: “The electoral roll for the Corporation shall be prepared (by the person authorised by the State Election Commissioner) in such manner by reference to such qualifying date as may be prescribed and the electoral roll for the Corporation shall come into force immediately (upon its publication) in accordance with the rules made by the Government in this behalf. The electoral roll for the Corporation shall consist of such part of the electoral roll for the Assembly [Ward] published under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 as revised or amended under the said Act, upto the qualifying date, as relates to the Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad or any portion thereof] Provided that any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entries in the electoral roll, or any inclusion of names in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituencies concerned, made by the Electoral Registration Officer under Section 22 or Section 23, as the case may be, of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, upto the date of election notification, for any election held under this Act, shall be carried out in the electoral roll of the Corporation and any such names included shall be added to the part relating to the concerned ward.” 19. In view of the proviso to Section 12(1) of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entries in the electoral roll, or any inclusion of names in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituencies concerned, made by the Electoral Registration Officer under Section 22 or Section 23, as the case may be, of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, upto the date of election notification, for any election held under this Act, shall be carried out in the electoral roll of the Corporation and any such names included shall be added to the part relating to the concerned ward. 20. Hence, the proviso permits any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entries in the electoral roll till issue of notification for election. In the present facts of the case, election notification is not yet issued and therefore, the Bar contained in Article 243 (z)(g) will not come in the way, since the election to Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation is governed by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Hence, I find that the Bar contained under Article 243(z)(g) of the Constitution of India, has no application, since the proviso to Section 12(1) of the GHMC Act i.e special enactment permits such electoral rolls till issue of final notification for elections. 21. Hence, I find that the Bar contained under Article 243(z)(g) of the Constitution of India, has no application, since the proviso to Section 12(1) of the GHMC Act i.e special enactment permits such electoral rolls till issue of final notification for elections. 21. One of the major contentions raised before this Court is that, when an appeal is provided under Rule 23 of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960, the petitioners have to avail the remedy under Rule 22 of the said Rules, by filing an appeal against the final electoral rolls, since it is a statutory remedy provided under the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960. 22. It is a settled law that, when an appeal is provided under the statute, more particularly, under the Representation of the People Act, the parties cannot directly approach this Court by invoking power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for rectifying the electoral rolls, since the statute provides such remedy. 23. In “Pampakavi Rayappa Belagali v. B.D. Jatti, 1971 AIR SC 1348”, the Supreme Court held that, the entire Scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 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 and not in other manner or before any other forum unless the question of violation of the provisions of Constitution is involved. 24. Long line of perspective pronouncements in “Nripendra Bahadur Singh v. Jai Ram Verma, 1977 AIR SC 1992”, “Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto, 1970 AIR SC 314,” “Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh, 1970 AIR SC 340”, “Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V.B. Raju, 1973 AIR SC 2602”,“The Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, 1988 AIR SC 61” and “Rajendra Rai v. The Election Commission of India, AIR 1996 Pat 9 ”, the Supreme Court and the Patna High Court held that, when election process is completed, the Court cannot interfere with the election process, since preparation of electoral rolls as part of election process. 25. The Bar stated above will not come in the way to these petitioners, for the simple reason that Section 12 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, permits such amendment, transposition or deletion of any entries in the electoral roll or any inclusion of names in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituencies, concerned. 26. 25. The Bar stated above will not come in the way to these petitioners, for the simple reason that Section 12 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, permits such amendment, transposition or deletion of any entries in the electoral roll or any inclusion of names in the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituencies, concerned. 26. Hence, mere providing an appeal under the Rules is not a ground to deny the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly, when the procedure followed by the respondents is illegal ex-facie. If the Court finds that the procedure followed by the administrative authorities is contrary to the statutory provisions or the procedure established, the Court can interfere with the administrative orders passed by the administrative authorities or quasi judicial authorities. In “West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim, 2019 (9) SCALE 573 ” herein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review. “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 27. By applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to the present facts of the case, the procedure followed by the electoral registration authority is contrary to various provisions referred above. In such case, this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. By applying the principle laid down in the above judgments to the present facts of the case, the procedure followed by the electoral registration authority is contrary to various provisions referred above. In such case, this Court can exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. 28. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find that it is a fit case to allow the writ petition by issuing Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to rectify the errors and illegalities pointed out by these petitioners mentioned above. 29. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to rectify the errors and illegalities in Electoral Roll pointed out by the petitioners, before issuing notification to conduct fair and free elections in Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, without waiting for copy of this order, as requested by the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, so as to proceed with the process of rectification of errors in Electoral Roll of Ward Number 78 of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. No costs. 30. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.