Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K. Ramaswamy, S.P. Bharucha and K.S. Paripoornan

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.

2. The controversy relates to election to the Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda District of Andhra Pradesh. The Notification was issued on June 7, 1995 to conduct elections to the Gram Panchayat Under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, (No 13 of 1994) 1994 (For short the 'Act'). The electoral rolls of the Gram Panchayat were required to be finalised 30 days prior to the poll. It would appear that in the draft roll prepared by the competent authority, names of about 94 persons find their place but later their names were delete. Consequently, they filed Writ Petition No. 3060/95 in the High Court including respondent No. 6-42 in this case. The elections were held and on 27th June, 1995. By an order dated 26th June, 1995 the High Court, by an interim order directed to allow 94 persons to participate in the election but on the date of the poll they could not exercise their franchise. Subsequently, in WPMP No. 16901/95 the respondent No. 6-42 sought direction to permit them to exercise their franchise. By an interim order dated July 6, 1995, the direction was issued by the High Court not to declare the result of the election of the Gram Panchayat. The appellant and proforma respondent No. 43 filed WVMP No. 2478/95 to vacate the direction issued by the High Court on July 6, 1995. On November 8, 1995, the High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Nalgonda to scrutinise the claims of respondent Nos. 6-42 and ascertain whether they are residing in the village. By proceedings dated December 2, 1995, the RDO found that only 20 persons were eligible to be included in the voters list as they were found living in the village, during the enquiry. On these facts, the High Court by the impugned order dated December 22, 1995 directed that 20 persons out of respondent Nos. 6-42, who were found eligible to vote should be allowed to participate in the election. Thus, these appeals by. special leave.

3. The only question is whether the High Court would be justified in giving the direction for participating the 20 persons who are found to be eligible to vote for exercising their franchise separately when the poll was already over. Shri P.P. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that once the election process was set in motion, by operation of Article