*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 619 of 2009 % 25.02.2009 Between: Smt. Darla Rama Devi and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Govt. of A.P. and others. .....RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS: Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murhty ^ COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: G.P. for GAD < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.619 of 2009 ORDER: Petitioners 1 to 20 figured as voters in Booth No.26 of Badevaripalem Village, Kandukur Assembly Constituency. Similarly, petitioners 21 to 40 were enlisted in the voters’ list for Booth No.27 of the same village. In the month of December 2008, the respondents have undertaken revision and updating of voters’ list. The names of the petitioners were deleted, on the ground that they are not ordinary residents of the Village. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners approached the appellate authority. Even that was of no consequence. Therefore, this writ petition is filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to enquire into the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioners. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners have stated the various steps that were followed in the matter of preparation and updating of the voters’ list. They state that soon after it was declared in the Gram Sabha, that their names are deleted, they have made representations and that the same were not considered. They assert that they are natives and ordinary residents of the village and the mere fact that they go out for some time to eke out their livelihood cannot be a ground to delete their names. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. The programme that was taken up for revision of the electoral list is explained in detail. It is stated that the Electoral Registration Officer, 3rd respondent herein, caused necessary enquiry and issued notices to the petitioners, before their names were deleted. According to them, the service of notice was effected through substituted means, since the petitioners were not available. The petitioners filed a reply affidavit denying the allegations in the counter affidavit. Sri Nuthalapati Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are very much residents of the village and that their names were included in the voters’ list, on being satisfied about their residence. He contends that some of them are drawing old age pensions and others were issued multi-purpose cards. Learned counsel further submits that though nobody complained against the petitioners, the Enumerating Officials have deleted their names, without following the procedure prescribed by law. Learned Government Pleader for GAD, on the other hand, submits that a detailed programme was drawn for revision of voters’ list and Gram Sabhas were conducted at various stages. He submits that door-to-door verification was caused and on finding that the petitioners are not ordinary residents, substituted service of notices was effected. He contends that the appellate authority has also examined the matter and if the petitioners feel aggrieved, they have to approach the State Election Commission. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Rules made thereunder prescribe a detailed procedure for preparation and revision of voters’ list. A valid voters’ list constitutes the actual basis for the democratic process. That is the reason why the Act provides for effective machinery at various stages for proper verification of the claims of the persons for inclusion in or deletion from the voters’ list. While Section 21 of the Act provides for preparation and revision of electoral rolls in general, Section 22 prescribes the procedure for deletion of names, which are already present in the list. Section 23 of the Act provides for inclusion of names in the existing electoral rolls. The grounds recognized under Section 22 for deletion are (a) erroneous or defective inclusion; or (b) change of place of residence within the constituency; or (c) where the person has ceased to be an ordinary resident in the constituency, or otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll. The proviso to Section 22 of the Act mandates that before the name of an individual is deleted, he shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard. In the instant case, the programme for revision of voters’ list was undertaken in December 2008. During this period, Gram Sabhas were conducted between 5th and 10th of December 2008. Most of the verification was done by the Enumerating Officials on their own accord, than with the assistance and participation of political parties and their agents. On noticing that the petitioners herein are not local residents, notices dated 23.12.2008 were said to have been issued, proposing to conduct the enquiry on 26.12.2008. Even according to the respondents, the notices are not served personally, and substituted service was effected. The respondents have filed copies of the notices together with the endorsements about the substituted service. The date, on which the notices are said to have been served, is interpolated. Initially 26.12.2008 was written and the number ‘6’ in the date was interpolated with ‘3’. The counter affidavit is silent as to the exact date of service of notice. On 31.12.2008, the 3rd respondent passed individual orders directing deletion of the names of the petitioners. It was mentioned that the notice, dated 23.12.2008, was published on that day itself. The Village Revenue Officer is said to have served the orders dated 31.12.2008, on 01.01.2009 by pasting the same to the door of the concerned individual. The date underneath the signature of the person, who caused the service, is somewhat illegible and gives an impression that it is 13th of same month. There is not even an endorsement either in the notice dated 23.12.2008 or in the order dated 31.12.2008 to the effect that the premises were locked. The averment of the petitioners that their family members were very much residing and some of them were very much in their houses remains undisputed and becomes relevant in the context of verifying the genuinity of the service of notices. The deletion of the name of an individual from electoral rolls visits him with serious consequences. For all practical purposes, he is excluded from the democratic process and is denied of any role in the election process. That is the reason why Section 22 of the Act itself mandates that the concerned person shall be given “reasonable opportunity of being heard”. Issuing notice on 23.12.2008 stipulating the date of enquiry as ‘26.12.2008’ by no means can be said to be a reasonable opportunity. The 3rd respondent ought to have ensured that the affected persons are put on notice. This Court is satisfied that the respondents did not give the petitioners adequate opportunity. The objections raised by the petitioners on 06.01.2009 are said to have not been considered. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 31.12.2008, passed by the 3rd respondent, deleting the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls of Booth Nos.26 and 27 of Badevaripalem Village, Kandukur Assembly Constituency are set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioners on a fixed date and take appropriate action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date: 25.02.2009 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. Issue C.C. in two days. (B/o) JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.619 of 2009 Date: 25.02.2009 JSU