Writ relief and electoral roll changes depend on proper parties and fair hearing before Article 226 assistance is granted.

Article 226 relief was refused where the writ sought alteration and republication of an electoral roll against only the Chairman, even though the statutory duty lay on the registering authority as a whole, creating a defect of necessary parties. The Court also declined to support an order excluding voters from the final roll because many affected persons had not received proper notice or a fair hearing. The text states that discretionary constitutional relief will not be granted to sustain an ex parte order affecting franchise rights when the proper authority is not before the Court and the procedural infirmity remains uncured.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to compel alteration and republication of the final electoral roll when the registering authority, and not the Chairman alone, was the body charged with that duty and necessary parties were absent. (ii) Whether the Court should exercise its discretion under Article 226 to support an order excluding voters from the electoral roll where many affected persons had not been heard.

Issue (i): The statutory scheme placed the preparation, amendment, and publication of the electoral roll on the registering authority, consisting of the Chairman and two commissioners. The appeal order of the District Magistrate required consequential amendments and republication, but the relief sought was directed only against the Chairman. An order against the Chairman alone would not bind the other members of the statutory authority, and the application therefore suffered from a defect of parties.

Conclusion: The writ could not be granted on this footing, as the proper statutory authority was not before the Court.

Issue (ii): The order under challenge affected the electoral rights of numerous persons who had not received proper notice or an effective opportunity of being heard. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable, and the Court would not lend its aid to sustain an ex parte order taking away the franchise of a large number of persons without observance of fair hearing. The absence of challenge by some affected persons did not cure the procedural infirmity.

Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise its discretion in favour of granting relief.

Final Conclusion: The application failed both because the relief was sought against an incomplete set of necessary parties and because the underlying order was not one that the Court would support in the exercise of its constitutional discretion.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Article 226, relief will be refused where the statutory authority responsible for the impugned act is not properly before the Court and where the order sought to be enforced was made without giving affected persons a fair opportunity of hearing.

---