Publication in law governs electoral roll amendments; late publication could not validate the election challenge.

Under the State Panchayat law, nominated members were treated as validly included in the electoral roll only after publication of their names in the prescribed manner, and any consequential revision of the roll could operate only from that effective publication. The evidence did not show lawful publication of the corrections before the deadline, and the roll was not established to have been amended before 3.00 p.m. on 3 June 1988. The Court treated the later public declaration at 8.55 p.m. as the first effective publication in law, applying the principle that a legal alteration affecting rights must be made known by publication in the eye of law. The election challenge therefore succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the names of the 242 nominated members were included in the electoral roll within the time permitted by law so as to validate the appellant's election.

Analysis: The nomination of members under the State Panchayat law was complete only upon publication of their names in the manner prescribed, and the consequential revision of the electoral roll could take effect only after the required publication had occurred. The evidence showed that publication in the various offices and chavadi locations was not completed before the deadline, and the electoral roll was not shown to have been lawfully amended before 3.00 p.m. on 3 June 1988. The later public declaration at 8.55 p.m. was treated as the first effective publication in law. Applying the principle that an order or alteration affecting legal rights must be made known in a manner that can be regarded as publication in the eye of law, the Court held that a confidential or unpublished correction could not operate earlier.

Conclusion: The electoral roll was not modified in law before 8.55 p.m. on 3 June 1988, and the challenge to the appellant's election therefore succeeded.

---