Fresh electoral rolls are mandatory after constituency reconstitution; old rolls cannot be reused for altered divisions.

Where a Janapada Sabha's limits or electoral divisions are materially altered, the statutory scheme requires fresh electoral rolls for the altered constituencies before a general election. A roll prepared for the original constituency cannot be used, merely rearranged, or revised to substitute for the fresh roll required by law, and omission to follow the prescribed procedure renders the election vulnerable. The availability of an election petition or other remedy does not absolutely bar Article 226 relief where a fundamental legal question affecting multiple elections requires authoritative determination. Elections based on defective rolls were therefore liable to be set aside, subject to standing and necessary-party requirements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the reconstitution or alteration of the limits of a Janapada Sabha and the expiry of the Sabha's term, the Chief Executive Officer was bound to prepare fresh electoral rolls for the altered electoral divisions before holding the general election; (ii) Whether electoral rolls prepared for the original constituency could validly be used, or merely rearranged or revised, after the constituencies had been altered, with the result that elections held on such rolls were valid; (iii) Whether the existence of an election petition or other remedy barred interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether, after the reconstitution or alteration of the limits of a Janapada Sabha and the expiry of the Sabha's term, the Chief Executive Officer was bound to prepare fresh electoral rolls for the altered electoral divisions before holding the general election?

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the voter list to be prepared for a particular electoral division and within the time fixed by Rule 1(1). When the statute was amended to create rural and urban circles and the limits of several Janapadas and divisions were altered, the earlier rolls no longer corresponded to the constituencies for which elections were to be held. The provisions governing franchise and roll preparation were read together to hold that the duty to prepare fresh rolls attached to the altered constituency structure, and that the Government could regulate the time and manner of preparation but could not dispense with the preparation of a fresh roll altogether.

Conclusion: Fresh electoral rolls were mandatory, and the omission to prepare them rendered the elections vulnerable.

Issue (ii): Whether electoral rolls prepared for the original constituency could validly be used, or merely rearranged or revised, after the constituencies had been altered, with the result that elections held on such rolls were valid?

Analysis: A roll prepared for one constituency could not be treated as the roll for a materially different constituency. The provisions for revision were held to operate within the framework of an existing valid roll, not to substitute for preparation of a fresh roll where the constituency itself had changed. Transfer of voters from one roll to another, or mere rearrangement of the old roll without compliance with the statutory procedure, was treated as unauthorized. The Court further held that the special provision for inclusion of omitted voters did not cure the absence of a properly prepared roll for the altered constituency.

Conclusion: The old or merely rearranged rolls could not lawfully support the elections, and the elections held on that basis were invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the existence of an election petition or other remedy barred interference under Article 226 of the Constitution?

Analysis: The availability of another remedy was held not to be an absolute bar to constitutional writ jurisdiction. Where the issue was of a fundamental character, affected many elections, and required authoritative settlement, the Court could intervene notwithstanding the alternative remedy. The petitioners had already been heard on the merits, and the Court found it appropriate to decide the legal question rather than leave the controversy unresolved.

Conclusion: The writ jurisdiction was maintainable and was not barred by the alternative remedy.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded to the extent that elections based on altered constituencies and defective rolls were set aside where the petitioners had the requisite interest, while petitions lacking necessary parties or standing were rejected or dismissed as to relief against particular returned candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory electoral roll is tied to a particular constituency, a material alteration of that constituency requires compliance with the statutory procedure for preparing a fresh roll, and an earlier roll cannot be treated as valid for the altered constituency by mere revision or rearrangement.

---