IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 8175 of 2009 Between: 1 Pepakayala Narayana Murthy, S/o. Satynarayana, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-228/A, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Pepakayala Lakshmi, W/o.Narayana Murthy, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-228/A, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Pepakayala Suryachandra Satyanarayana, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-228/C, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 4 Pepakayala Padma Kumari, W/o. P. Surya Chandra Satyanarayana, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-228/C, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Pepakayala Haribabu, S/o. Satynarayana, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-228/A, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 Mudragada Veeraveni, W/o. Veera Raghavulu, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-284, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. 7 Mudragada Veera Raghavulu, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Hindu, R/o. D.No. 2-284, Punykshetram, H/o. Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 State Election Commission, Rep. by its Election Commissinoer, State of A.P., Bhudhabhavan, Secunderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District at Kakinada. 3 Electoral Registration Officer-Cum-Revenue Divisional Office Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 4 Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate Writ, Order or directin declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in deleting the names of the Petitioners herein from the Original voters list of 168 Rajanagaram Assembly Constituency, Andhra Pradesh, without conducting inquiry as contemplated under law and statutory as per the provisions of Peoples Representatives Act 1951, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a cosnequential order directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioners in the voters list of 168 Rajanagaram Assembly Cosntituency, Andhra Pradesh, for exercising their franchise in the forth coming elections for both M.P., of Rajahmundry and M.L.A., of Rajanagaram scheduled to be held on 23-4-2009 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.V.V.PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following : .. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.8175 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per SK,J) The petitioners, seven in number, question the action of the Electoral Registration Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, the third respondent, in deleting their names from the voters’ list of 168-Rajanagaram Assembly Constituency, East Godavari District, and seek a consequential direction to the respondents to include their names in the said voters’ list enabling them to exercise their franchise in the forthcoming Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Elections scheduled on 23.04.2009. It is the case of the petitioners that they are all permanent residents of Punyakshetram, Hamlet of Bhupalapatnam Gram Panchayat, Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners received notices in February, 2009 under Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1950’) addressed by the third respondent asking them to show cause as to why their names should not be deleted from the voters’ list. The petitioners claim to have submitted a detailed explanation in response thereto, but complain that their names were deleted from the voters’ list without conducting any enquiry. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said action, filed the present writ petition and seek a declaration that the action of the third respondent in deleting their names from the voters’ list of 168-Rajanagaram Assembly Constituency, East Godavari District, is illegal and a consequential direction to include their names in the voters’ list, thereby enabling them to exercise their franchise in the ensuing Elections on 23.04.2009. Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the Election Authorities. Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioners, stated that the action of the third respondent in deleting the names of the petitioners from the voters’ list is illegal and unsustainable being in violation of the prescribed procedure laid down in the Act of 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder. He placed reliance on the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in DARLA RAMA DEVI AND OTHERS v. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1]. Per contra, Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the Election Authorities, submitted that once the last date for making nominations was over, it is not open to the petitioners to seek inclusion of their names in the electoral rolls and that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on this short ground. We have perused the Judgment in DARLA RAMA DEVI’s case (1 supra) and find ourselves in complete agreement with the principle of law laid down therein. It is indisputable that the deletion of an individual’s name from the electoral rolls visits upon him a serious consequence and he is, for all practical purposes, excluded from the democratic election process. It is for this reason that Section 22 of the Act of 1950, as pointed by the learned Judge, mandates that such person should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to the visitation of deletion of his name from the electoral rolls. This judgment is, however, of no avail to the petitioners in the light of what we have to state hereunder. It is to be noted that what is of paramount importance is that the election process, once it is initiated, should not be interrupted, delayed, hampered or hindered. This is in the larger interest of ensuring that the election process under the superintendence and control of the Election Commission culminates in a democratic referendum whereby a popularly elected Government is put in place. It is, for this reason, that Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 seeks to freeze the electoral rolls and introduce a finality to the same with reference to a particular stage, so as to ensure the smooth progress of the election process. Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 reads as hereunder: “23. Inclusion of names in electoral rolls (1) … … … (2) … … … (3) No amendment, transposition or deletion or any entry shall be made under section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election.” Admittedly, the last date for making nominations for 168-Rajanagaram Assembly Constituency, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, was 04.04.2009. Once the last date for making nominations is over, there is a statutory bar under Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 against tampering with the electoral rolls, be it by way of amendment, transposition, deletion or inclusion. In view of this statutory bar, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the petitioners’ grievance as to the illegality of the action of the third respondent in deleting their names from the electoral rolls. Whatever be the validity of such an action the same can only form a ground of attack under Section 100 of the Act of 1950 in an Election Petition. At this stage, no ground is made out to overlook the statutory bar under Section 23(3) of the Act of 1950 and interfere with the election process by directing the Election Authorities to alter the electoral rolls. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. __________ April, 2009. VGSR [1] 2009 (2) ALD 826