SAXENA, J. - (1.) HELD - In Inderjit Barua's case (supra), the revision of electoral rolls was dispensed with by the Election Commission. That order was not challenged and elections were held on the basis of such unrevised electoral roll for the Assam Legislative Assembly on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. Interpreting the provisions of Art. 329 (b) and 226 of the Constitution of India, it was held that the validity of the election could not be challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the electoral rolls were invalid because the bar under Article 329 operates and that the plea that the elections were challenged as a whole and not individually was immaterial. The Apex Court further held that the court can also not issue any direction to the Election Commission not to hold any election to the Parliament from Assam unless the revision of the electoral roll was complete.
(2.) IN A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman vs. Union of INdia (6), the Apex Court has emphasized that where election is imminent, the High Court must be very cautious and slow to interfere under and to pass orders or directions postponing the election. It was also held that the allegations of irregularities in the electoral rolls, held on facts were vague and general in nature and in absence of material before it, the High Court was not justified in passing orders for postponement of the election. It was further observed that no High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should pass any orders interim or otherwise, which has the tendency of effect of postponement in the election, which is reasonably imminent and in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked and that the imminence of the electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Therefore, keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, in the case on hand, once the notification dated 29th Oct. 1994 under Sec. 23 (1a) of the Act has been issued and published in the Rajasthan Gazelle Extra Ordinary dated 31st Oct. 1994 alongwith the revised calendar of events of election, the election process for the impugned election commenced and that same cannot be stayed or withheld or in any way interrupted on the ground of any infirmity in the formation of or delimitation of the wards, reservation of the reserved wards, publication of the electoral rolls by filing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution because the bar of Article 243 ZG operates. It is needless to mention that any irregularity in the publication of the draft electoral roll does not render the election to be void. The challenge regarding the delimitation or infirmity in formation of the wards or reservation of reserved wards or non compliance of the procedure or law in respect of the impugned election in this writ petition are not legally maintainable in view of the bar provided by Article 243 ZG of the Constitution of India and Sec. 329 of the Act. Apart from it, the election should not be held up and the person aggrieved should not be permitted to ventilate his individual interest. On the other hand, the general interest of the electorates at large requires that the election should be gone through according to the time schedule. In my considered opinion, this writ petition has been filed at a belated stage for personal interest of the petitioners and for ulterior motives to get the election of the Municipal Board of Pali postponed. Hence for the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. .;