STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus G. NAGAPPA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 21-07-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8' 
/ 
c 
' 
E 
-
F 
G 
H 
ST A TE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
v. 
G. NAGAPPA & ORS. 
July 21, 1975 
I A. ALAGIJUSWAMI, P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, Ss. 13 and 14 (llld !Vlysore Municipali-
ties (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1%5, r. 75-ScoP,e of poH'er of State 
(,·0 venuneru ru cancel calendar of events fixed by Returning Officer. 
Section 13 of the Karnatak~ Municipalities Act, 1964, pro\•ides that for the~ 
purpose of election of councillors of a !own mu~ci~ality at a ¥-ener:al electiort 
ihe State Govl.!rnment shall after previous publication by notification, deter.~, 
mine, (a) the number of' territorial 4ivisions into which the municipality' 
shall be div~ded; (b) the extent of each territorial division; (c) the numbe~ 
of seats ~llotted to each territorial division; 
and (d) the number of seats 
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and women. 
Section 14 provides that th¢ 
electoral roll of the State Legislative Assembly for the territorial area comprised; 
i'n the division, shall be deemed to be· the list of voters 
of such 
division .. 
Rule 75 of the Mysore Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1965; 
empowers the State Government to make such orders as it deems f1t for 
ensuring that the elections are held in accordance wi~h the provisions of th~ 
Act. 
For holding a general election with respect to a town municipal council, 
the State Government issued the notification under s. 13. Thereafter, the 
Returning Officer issued a notice fixing the calendar of events for holding the 
election. The list of voters for each division was prwared exactly according 
to the Electoral Roll, and kept open for inspection in the office of the 
municipal council. 
A list of the contesting candidates was a1so published and 
the poll da-te \\'as also fixed as January 10, 1975. 
At that stage it was found 
that some voters residin2 in the border of one division had been included in 
the v~ters' list of an adjoining division and the State Government, in purported 
exercise of th: power under r. _75, cancelled the calendar of events published 
by the Retu:n.r~g Office,r and directed a fresh preparation of the' voters' Hst 
as per t~e d1v1s1ons notified. 
In a writ petition filed· by the respondents, whb 
were residents of the town, th.e High Court held that the State Government 
had no JX>Wer to cancel the calendar of events and quashed the direction of 
the State Government. 
· 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
. J:IELD: (I) What is requ!"re? .bY s. 14(1) is that the list of voters of a 
d1vI~10~ should . correspo~d 
1ps1s~11!1~ , rerba 
with the Electoral Roll for the 
territorial ~ea included m the d~v~sion: Jf there is any mistake in the Elec-
~or~l ~'!11 I~ that some i.:oters res1d1ng 1n one area or house number are shown 
as res1.d1ng ID ~other, it cannot be corrected bv the Retumin · Offi 
hi 
pr~panng the list of voters for that division 
The onl . w 
~ 
h'7r w Je 
:~~:e c~2 be f c~recked is by applying for ;ectification Y of ~be 
1
E1e~t~~l ~~~ 
rectifica~ion iso not ~ad~pre:~~t~t~~(efi0
f. 11!b P~pJe Act, 
1950·, but ;f suc.h 
they would ne 
'J 
b~ 
i. 
in 
e 
ectoraJ RolJ would stand and 
that would no~:~~Jtut: ~fte~ted in the list of voters for the division. 
But 
V?t~~s for the division is co::1!~~~~ soJt f~r as 1 th~f Ph~pa;ation Of the Jist of 
d1v1s1on does not corres 
0 
• 
· 
is on Y 1 t e list of voters for· the 
that the. voters shown i~h~ ~!~t th} R0~~rne<l ~l~cto:aJ RoIJ i~ th.e sense 
are onutted to be included in th or~. 
o 
as res1d1ng In the terntonal area 
shnwn in the. Electoral RoII as re ~d. ISt . of hot.~rs .. of. that division or voters 
are included In ,the Pst Of 
s1 ing tn t e ·erntonal area of o'ne division 
ii;: defective and not i~ acco~d~;~ of 'th~~her, th.a~ it can be ~aid that the list 
WI 
e prov1s1ons of the Act. 
f64D-H] 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 S.C.R. 
(2) The scheme of the Acl and particularly ss. 14 and 15 show that it is 
A 
ouly one list of voters that is contemplated to be in force during the entiro 
process of election, and 
there i'S no question of correcting the list of voters 
according to the revised Electoral Roll which had come into being in Febru-
ary, 1975. [650-H] 
The list of voters is to be prepared for 'tho election tnd 'election' meMlS the 
entire prOCCii consisting of the several stages and embracing tho several steps 
by wrnch an elected member is returned. [65H] 
B 
Section 14(1) does not cont

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.