HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5674 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners claim to be residents of Kokatam village of Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. While the 1st petitioner is the wife of M.L.A. of the constituency; the 2nd petitioner, son of the 1st petitioner, is the President of Mandal Parishad, Kamalapuram; the 3rd petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner; and the 4th and 5th petitioners are son-in-law and daughter-in-law of the 1st petitioner. Their grievance is that in the recent revision of electoral list in the village their names have been deleted. It is represented that in reply to the notice issued under Rule 21A of the Registration of Electoral Rules, 1960, replies were submitted by him asserting that they are residing in the same place and still the respondents have deleted their names. On behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that enquiry as contemplated under the relevant Rules was conducted and only on the basis that the petitioners are not ordinary residents of the village, their names were deleted. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for General Administration. The rules prescribe the procedure to be followed for inclusion or exclusion of persons in the electoral list. It is not in dispute that the names of the petitioners have figured in the electoral roll of the village concerned. In the course of revision, their names were deleted, may be after issuing notices. The petitioners assert that they still continue to be the residents of the same village. No orders were passed and the basis on which the conclusion was arrived at, was not indicated. Normally, a person’s name can be deleted from the existing electoral roll, if he is enrolled as a voter at another place. Further, the expression ordinarily resident has its own connotation. A person cannot be resident of the same place through out the year. In many cases, they have to visit other places on account of their employment or profession and much would depend upon the activity undertaken by them at the concerned place. Rule 26 of the Rules provides for the remedy for the persons whose names are deleted or included contrary to their wishes. The petitioners can avail the remedy by filing the application under form No.VI to the Revenue Divisional Officer and Electoral Registration Officer i.e., the 2nd respondent. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to file application in terms of Rule 26 before the 2nd respondent, who in turn shall pass appropriate orders within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:01.04.2011 LMV Note: Furnish C.C. today {B/o GJ/LMV} HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5674 of 2011 01.04.2011 LMV