It was observed All these indicate that even after the last date, let alone the last hour for filing numberinations, P.W. 1 might have entertained some applications for additions and effected deletions as well based on reports of Anganwadi teachers received at the 13th hour.
The said election petition came to be filed in the following circumstances A preliminary electoral roll mother roll was published in 1999 which was revised on 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001 purported to be in terms of companytinuous and special revision scheme.
The view taken by this Court in Vashit Narain Sharma supra has companysistently been followed also in J. Chandra Sekhara Rao, Uma Ballav Rath Smt. ,
PI and Ext P2 filed in the proceedings being number certified ones, the same were inadmissible in evidence 5 The appellant admitted that he had numberknowledge about the precise date on which the final electoral roll was published 6 A companyy of the final electoral roll having number been filed, numberfinding can be arrived at for determination as to whether there had been any subsequent addition or deletion 7 No clinching evidence had been adduced to show that there had actually been an addition of 787 votes or more after 3 p.m. or deletion of that number of votes thereafter 8 No voters had companye forward with a case that his right to vote was denied, although the same is a companytitutional right under Article 326 of the Constitution of India 9 Although the Election Officer who examined himself as P.W. 1 had number acted with responsibility, the same did number have any direct effect in the outcome of the result 10 Though irregularities had been companymitted in the matter of preparation of electoral roll but the same were insufficient to upset the result of the election.
The third and fourth respondents herein obtained 7,345 and 1, 107 votes respectively.
In fact, the petitioner has created a strong suspicion whether there was, in actual fact, any publication of the final roll as claimed by him in his numberice board at all.
In the election petition, the appellant herein alleged that after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, names of 19,045 voters were deleted from the voters list whereas 6,828 new names were added therein.
The first, second, third and fourth respondents herein companytested the said election.
QUESTIONS Whether addition or deletion of names after the last date fixed for filing of numberinations would invalidate the entire election?
The appellant herein was the election agent of the second respondent.
The files produced by him do number companytain the office companyy of any numberice published by him announcing publication of the final electoral roll whether it was published at 8 p.m. on the 23rd or thereafter.
