@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.N. Rao, J.@mdashThe question at issue in these three inter-connected Writ Petitions is whether the electoral roll in respect of the gram
panchayat of Mucherla, which attained finality on 1-1-1995, could be altered by the Electoral Registration Officer (Mandal Revenue Officer) and
the Electoral Appellate Officer (Revenue Divisional Officer). The gram panchayat in question is Mucherla in Pedana mandal of Krishna district.
2. Writ Petition No. 5694 of 1995 was filed by 31 persons. The case of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 is that in the draft electoral roll published on 31-
12-1994 their names were included; but the Revenue Divisional Officer who is the Electoral Appellate Officer, by his order dated 20-1-1995 on
an appeal filed by one M. Ranga Mohan (5th respondent in Writ Petition No. 12469 of 1995), directed deletion of their names on the ground that
they are not residents of the village. That order was passed, according to them, without affording them any opportunity to establish their claim that
they are permanent residents of the village. As regards petitioner Nos. 3 to 11 the averment in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that
they are voters of the gram panchayat and they also participated in the elections to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly held on 5-12-1994,
but the Mandal Revenue Officer removed their names from the electoral roll without giving any notice. When they preferred an appeal to the
Electoral Appellate Officer the same was rejected on 19-1-1995 without giving any opportunity to them. As regard petitioner Nos. 12 to 31 the
case pleaded is that they are the permanent residents of the village and so they are entitled to be included in the voter''s list and when they filed
applications before the Electoral Registration Officer the same were rejected and the appellate authority affirmed that order.
3. Writ Petition No. 11899 of 1995 was filed by 16 persons claiming that their names were included in the draft electoral roll; but one D.
Venkateswara Rao, leader of the opposite faction, represented to the Revenue Divisional Officer that they are not the residents of the village and
on that ground their names were deleted from the voter''s list by the District Panchayat Officer. When the election notification was issued on 7-6-
1995 they came to know that their names were deleted and as the election notification was already issued they could not prefer appeal to the
appellate authority.
4. In Writ Petition No. 5694 of 1995 an order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 30-5-1995 holding that both the original as well
as the appellate authorities concluded that petitioner Nos. 12 to31arenotresidentsof the village Mucherla and therefore the rejection of their claim
for inclusion of their names in the voters'' list was justified. On that view the Writ Petition was dismissed so far as petitioners 12 to 31 are
concerned. But as regards petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 the Writ Petition was directed to be listed for final hearing. We must also mention in this context
that when the Writ Petition came up for admission on 30-5-1995 in the Vacation Court, a Division Bench, while posting the matter for admission
to 15-6-1995, granted interim injunction to the effect that:
In the meanwhile, if any notification is issued notifying the election for Mucherla Gram Panchayat, the petitioners Nos. 1 to 11 shall be permitted
to participate in the said elections.
5. As regards petitioner Nos. 1 to 11, the Writ Petition was admitted.
6. Writ Petition No. 12469 of 1995 was filed by 15 persons of the village of whom petitioner Nos. 2,3,4,11,12,13,14 and 15 figured earlier as
petitioner Nos. 22,21,23,29,31,25,24 and 30 in Writ Petition No. 5694 of 1995 which was dismissed insofar as they are concerned. The case
pleaded in Writ Petition No. 12469 of 1995 is that all the petitioners are residents of the village, their names were found in the draft electoral roll
but they were deleted at the instance of the 5th respondent, Ranga Mohan, who alleged that they were not residents of the village. Deletion was
effected, according to them, without any notice.
7. By an interlocutory order dated 22-6-1995, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 12469 of 1995 were permitted to participate in the elections.
So far as petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1 1899 of 1995 are concerned, by an interlocutory order dated 20-6-1995 they were permitted to
participate in the voting but their votes were directed to be kept separately. As a consequence of the interim orders passed in the three Writ
Petitions, the 42 persons whose names are not found in the final electoral roll have exercised their franchise. Insofar as the 16 persons in Writ
Petition No. 11899 of 1995 are concerned, their votes are now identifiable since they have been kept separately in a sealed cover. As regards the
rest of the 26 votes (11 votes of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 11 in Writ Petition No. 5694 of 1995 and 15 votes of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.
12469 of 1995), the same cannot now be readily identified as no orders similar to the one in Writ Petition No. 11899 of 1995 were passed to
keep the votes in a separate sealed cover.
8. Theelectoral roll became final with effect from 1-1-1995. By Rule3-A of the Rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 879, Panchayat Raj, dated 3-12-
1994, as amended by G.O.Ms. No. 72, dated 4-2-1995, the Electoral Registration Officer was empowered to direct additions or deletions to the
electoral roll even after the election notification was issued. The aforesaid Rule 3-A was struck down by a five Judge Bench of this Court presided
over by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 1995 and batch as clarified in Review W.P.M.P. No. 16875 of 1995 and
batch by order dated 10-7-1995. The Bench directed that the officers connected with the conduct of elections should verify the electoral rolls ""of
such wards in which names of voters have been added after 7-2-1995 and if the newly added votes are found to be genuine, declare the result of
the election. If, however, there are some voters whose names were added after 7-2-1995 and who have voted but the result of election is not
likely to be materially affected thereby, publish the result. If, however, in such a case the result is likely to be materially affected, not to publish the
result and order for fresh election"".
9. Although the aforesaid direction concerns only with additions, inasmuch as the amendment made to Rule 3-A empowering the Electoral
Registration Officer to delete the names from the electoral roll has not been noticed, the direction given to the officers connected with the conduct
of elections insofar as additions are concerned, applies equally to the deletions also. But, it must be noticed that the aforesaid direction has no
application to the cases in hand for the self-evident reason that the alleged deletions in question had taken place prior to 7-2-1995.
10. What follows, therefore, is that the alleged deletions made to the draft electoral roll cannot be challenged by the petitioners.
11. All the three Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. The Election Officer shall publish the result of the election and while doing so he shall not
take into account the 16 votes directed to be kept separately as per the order in W.P.M.P. No. 14544 of 1995 in Writ Petition No. 11899
oM995. We make it explicit that if an election petition is filed alleging any irregularities, the Election Tribunal shall identify the aforesaid 42 votes
and exclude them from reckoning by declaring them invalid and decide the matter in accordance with as expeditiously as possible, in any event not
later than three months from the date of filing of the petition. The interim orders granted earlier stand vacated.
