SUBBA RAO, C. J.

( 1 ) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by these are three writ petitions arising out of the same election process in different stages in respect of the elections to the Vijayawada Municipality. Vijayawada is one of the important towns in the State of Andhra Pradesh. After the Indian Constitution came into force, the wards of that Municipality were re-distributed to bring them in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and elections were held in 1952 when Vijayawada was in the Madras State. On 1st october, 1953, the Andhra State was inaugurated and, in the ordinary course, elections should have been held to the Municipal Council in 1955. But the government extended its life along with that of other Municipal Councils in the State till july, 1956. Thereafter, on 5th May, 1956, after following the prescribed formalities, the Government effected a re-distribution of the wards in the Vijayawada Municipality for the purpose of holding the next elections. On 22nd June, 1956, for reasons which we need not particularise, the Vijayawada Municipal Council was superseded for a period of one year. The period of supersession was extended for another six months and will expire by 21st December, 1957. In the order extending the period of supersession, it was specifically mentioned that the new elections would be held and the reconstituted Council would come into being on 21st December, 1957. Indeed, the Government directed the Inspector-General of Local Administration to conduct the elections and to reconstitute the Council by that date and steps were teing taken towards that end. But, on 5th November, 1957, the Government issued another notification re-distributing once again the wards in the Vijayawada municipality. On 12th November, 1957, new electoral rolls on the basis of the re-distribution of the wards were published. On 13th November, 1957, a notification was issued by the Government fixing the election programme, whereunder 21st, 22nd and 23rd November, were the dates fixed for receiving nominations, 25th November for scrutiny, 16th December for polling and 17th December for counting. The authorities concerned are proceeding to conduct the elections in accordance with the aforesaid programme.

( 2 ) W. P. No. 864 of 1957 is filed by T. Venkateswara Rao, who claims to be a rate-payer in the Vijayawada Municipality and a resident of Ward No. 28 as constituted in the re-distribution of the wards effected on 5th May, 1956. He was a councillor till the date of the supersession of the Municipality on 22nd June, 1956. He is also a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party, Vijayawada, which is setting up candidates for election in the several wards. The petition was filed on 4th November, 1957, for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direct the respondents to hold the elections to the Vijayawada Municipality on the basis of the wards fixed under G. O. Ms. No. 674 L. A. , dated 5th May, 1956. On nth November, 1957, the said Venkateswara Rao filed another writ petition, W. P. No. 896 of 1957, for issuing a writ of certlorari to quash G. O. Ms. No, 1976 L. A. , dated 5th November, 1957, published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 6th November, 1957, re-distributing the wards on the eve of the new elections. T. V. P. Ramachandra Rao and Dr. T. V. S. Chalapathi Rao filed W. P. No. 1015 of 1957 for issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order to quash the notification issued by the Government, dated 5th November, 1957 and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, dated 6th November, 1957, the proceedings relating to the preparation and publication of the electoral rolls and the consequential election proceedings on the basis of such wards and rolls.

( 3 ) THE three writs were filed in respect of the three stages of the election process questioning the holding of the elections on the basis of the re-distributed wards effected in November, 1957 and for conducting the elections on the basis of the earlier re-distribution of wards effected in May, 1956.

( 4 ) AT the outset, it will be convenient to deal with two preliminary points raised by the Government Pleader against the maintainability of the petitions. His first objection is that the petitioners have no legal interest in the matter to maintain the petitions. In the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioners are only ratepayers, that they have no specific legal interest in the matter, that neither of them has filed nomination papers for councillorship and that, therefore, they are not in any way aggrieved by the re-distribution of the Municipality into wards.- In the affidavits filed by the petitioners, the following facts are disclosed. Both the petitioners in w. P. No. 1015 of 1957 are rate-payers. The first petitioner Ramachandra rao owns houses and lands in the Vijayawada Municipality and the second was chairman of the Vijayawada Municipality from 1947 till July, 1955. The petitioner in Writ Petitions Nos. 864 and 896 of 1957 is, apart from being a rate-payer in the vijayawada Municipality, a member of the Secretariat of the Communist Party in vijayawada and his Party intends toset up candidates for election in the several wards. All the three are, therefore, vitally interested in seeing that the elections are properly held in accordance with the provisions of the statute and the rules made thereunder. They are voters. They can stand for election and the good adminitration of the Municipality depends upon the right men being elected to it. A similar objection was not accepted by a Division Bench of the Andhra High Court in Venugopalam v. Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipality, (1956) An. W. R. 711. Viswanatha Sastri, J. who delivered the judgment on behalf of the Bench, in adverting to the said contention observed at page 714 :-"it cannot be said that the applicants have no specific legal right to be enforced or that their right would not be affected or infringed by the act of the respondents in holding the elections. The matt or may be looked at in one of two ways. The applicants are electors in the constituencies to which the proposed elections relate. They can rightly claim that in a democratic set up it is their valuable right not only to exercise their vote but also to see that their wards are properly represented in tho Municipal Council and for that purpose elections conducted in accordance with the law framed for that purpose. A violation of the statutory rules of election affects the applicants who are voters in the wards and it is for this reason that voters are given an equal right with the candidates, to call in question an illegal and invalid election. The applicants have another and a more substantial right as rate-payers who contribute to the municipal fund and they have a right to prevent the municipal authorities to which they pay rates from spending municipal funds on unauthorised and illegal elections. Under rule 42 (e) of the Taxation and Finance Rules, Part II framed under the District municipalities Act, a Municipal Council is authorised to incur expenses in connection with elections, that is to say, elections authorised by law. As rate-payers the applicants have a specific legal interest which entitles them to come to Court for the protection of that interest and in order to prevent the mis-application of municipal funds on elections held contrary to law. This aspect of the matter is well brought in the Irish case of The Queen v. Drury, (1894) L. R. 2 Ir. 489. extracted in Municipal Corporation, Bombay v. Govind Laxman, A. I. R. 1949 Bom. 229, 234-235. Rate-payers who have contributed to the Muncipal rates are injured in their property within the meaning of the rules regulating the issue of a writ of mandamus if the rates are misapplied for unlawful enterprises ".

( 5 ) WE have cited the passage In extenso as it clearly lays down the principles governing the maintainability of writ petitions at the instance of rate-payers in the context of elections. We entirely and with respect (agree with) the aforesaid observations as laying down the correct law on the subject. It follows that the petitions are maintainable. Nor can we sustain the second preliminary objection. It is said that the division of the wards and the fixing of the programme for the elections are administrative acts, and, therefore, the writs are not maintainable. We have no doubt that the division of the Municipality into wards and the taking of steps for holding elections are administrative acts of the Government. But that in itself is not a ground for rejecting the Petitions. Writ Petition No. 864 of 1957 is for a writ of mandamus and the other two petitions are for the issue of writs of certiorari. But all the three petitions contain a prayer for the issue of other appropriate order or direction against the respondents. In the circumstances, the form is not material but the substance matters. When a petitioner prays for alternative reliefs, the Court will have to issue that writ which would fit in with the facts established. There is an essential distinction between a writ of certiorari and a writ of mandamus. A writ of certiorari is available for the removal of any judicial act or quasi-judicial act of an inferior tribunal, whereas a writ of mandamus is issued to compel the performance of duties of a public nature. The condition that the act complained of should be a judicial act applies to the former relief and not the latter. In this case, should we hold that the respondents have not discharged the duties enjoined on them under the District municipalities Act and that they purported to perform the duties contrary to the provisions of the Act a writ of mandamus will certainly issue to direct them to discharge their duties in compliance with the provisions of the Act. In this view, there are no merits in the second preliminary objection either. We, therefore, reject the same.

( 6 ) MR. Ekbote and Mr. Narayana Rao, who followed him, raised various contentions questioning the validity of the orders made by the respondents and the conduct of the election proceedings which we will consider seriatim. The first argument is that the election programme fixed by the Government does not provide for any machinery for hearing objections and for deciding them in respect of voters included in or excluded from the electoral rolls and, therefore, the whole proceedings leading up to the polling are invalid. To appreciate this argument, some relevant facts may be recapitulated. The electoral rolls were published on 12th November, 1957. The notification fixing the programme of elections was issued on 13th November, 1957. The 21st, 22nd and 23rd November, 1957, were allotted for the filing of nominations. On and between 12th November and 21st november, 1957, no notification was issued by the Government prescribing any machinery enabling the voters to raise objections and enabling any officer to decide them. On the said ground, the argument proceeds, the absence- of any such machinery vitiates the election process. So stated, there is plausibility in the argument. But, before this argument, it would be necessary to scrutinise the relevant provisions of the Madras District Municipalities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the notifications issued by the Government relating to the preparation and publication of electoral rolls, the qualification of a voter to be placed on the municipal rolls, the objections available and open to a voter and the opportunity given to an aggrieved party to raise objections in respect of an electoral roll.

( 7 ) THE material provisions of the Act are as follows : section 44.- (i) Every person whose name is included in such part of the electoral roll for any assembly constituency as relates to the municipality or any portion thereof, shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll for the municipality prepared for the purposes of this Act and no other person shall be entitled to be included in such roll.

( 8 ) EXPLANATION (1 ).-Where in the case of any Assembly constituency there is no distinct part of the electoral roll relating to the municipality, all persons whose names are entered in such roll under the registration area comprising the municipality and whose addresses (as entered in such roll) are si mated in the municipality shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll for the Municipality prepared for the purposes of this Act. Explanation (2 ).-No person s name shall be included in the electoral roll for the Municipality in more than one place. (2) As soon as may be, after the electoral rolls for the assembly constituencies which consist of, or comprise, the Municipality or any portion thereof, have been published, revised or amended in pursuance of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, any person authorised by the election authority in this behalf shall publish in such manner as the State Government may direct, the portions of the said rolls which relate to the Municipality or of the alterations therein, as the electoral roll for the municipality or as alterations to such roll as the case may be. (3) When a Municipality has been divided into wards, the electoral roll for the Municipality shall be divided into separate lists for each ward. (4) Where after the electoral roll for a municipality or any alterations thereto have been published under sub-section (2), the municipality is divided into wards for the first time or the division of the municipality into wards is altered, or the limits of the municipality are varied the election authority shall, as soon as may be after such division or alteration, or variation, as the case may be, in order to give effect to the division of the municipality into wards or to the alteration of the wards or to the variation of the limits as the case may be authorise a re-arrangement and re-publication of the electoral roll for the municipality or any part of such roll in such manner as the (State) Government may direct. (5) The electoral roll for the municipality published under sub-section (2), as revised by any alterations thereto subsequently published under that sub-section or under sub-section (4), shall remain in force until the publication of a fresh electoral roll for the municipality under subsection (2 ). (6) Every person whose name appears in the electoral roll for the municipality, as so revised, shall, so long as it remains in force, be entitled subject to the provisions of this Act, to vote at an election; and no person whose name does not appear in such roll shall vote at an election. Explanation.-In this section and section 45, the expression assembly constituency shall mean a constituency provided by order made under section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, for the purpose of elections to the Madras Legislative Assembly. Section 45.-Notwithstanding anything contained in section 44, the election authority may, after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, publish in such manner as the State Government may direct, amendments to the electoral roll for any municipality for the purpose of bringing it into accord with the electoral roll for the relevent assembly constituency.

( 9 ) UNDER the aforesaid provisions, the Act prescribes a simplified procedure for preparing and publishing electoral rolls for a Municipality. Every person, whose name is included in the electoral roll of that part of the Assembly constituency, is entitled to be included in the electoral roll of the Municipality. The only qualification for a person to be included in the Municipal electoral roll is that his name should be included in the corresponding part of the roll of the Assembly constituency.

( 10 ) THE municipal electoral roll is divided into separate lists for each ward. The person authorised by the election authority has to publish in the manner prescribed parts of the rolls which relate to the Municipality or their alterations. If there is alteration of wards, a re-publication of the electoral roll in the prescribed manner is made. The electoral roll published as revised remains in force until the publication of fresh electoral rolls. Only persons, whose names appear in an electoral roll, are entitled to vote. The election authority is empowered to make an enquiry and publish in the prescribed manner amendments to the electoral roll for the purpose of bringing it into accord with the electoral roll for the Assembly constituency. Pursuant to the power conferred on the Government under sections 44 and 45 of the Act, the Government passed an order, dated 5th May, 1952, prescribing the manner of publishing electoral rolls for a Municipality. Under paragraph 4 of that order, the amendments to the electoral roll for a Municipality, which may be made by the election authority under section 45 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920 (Madras Act V of 1920) shall be published in the manner mentioned in paragraph 1 (a ). Under paragraph 5 :"the election officer, on application made to him for the correction of an existing entry in the electoral roll for a Municipality for the time being in force, shall, if he is satisfied after such enquiry as he thinks fit that the entry relates to the applicant and is erroneous or defective in any particular, on account of any clerical or accidental mistakes or misprints rectify the mistake or defect. Such corrections shall be published in the form in Annexure. . . . in the manner mentioned in paragraph i (a)".

( 11 ) PARAGRAPH 4 prescribes the manner of publishing the amendments made by an election authority, whereas paragraph 5 deals with amendments made by an election officer. What an election officer is authorised to do is only to correct clerical or accidental mistakes or misprints. But substantial amendments can be published only by the election authority in the manner prescribed under section 45 of the Act. The aforesaid procedure prescribed by the Act and the notification thereunder issued by the Government enable an election authority to make an enquiry for the purpose of bringing into accord the municipal electoral roll with the electoral roll of the relevant Assembly constituency. As the qualification of a person to be included in the municipal roll depends upon the fact of his name being in the corresponding assembly roll, the following objections only can be raised by an aggrieved person. (z.) A s name is in the relevant legislative electoral roll but is not included in the municipal electoral roll ; (it) A s name is not in the legislative electoral roll but is included in the corresponding municipal electoral roll ; and (in) There are. clerical mistakes in regard to the description of a voter. The first two can be amended by an election authority only and the third can be done only by a person authorised by an election authority. As the third objection relates only to a clerical mistake, it is allowed to be done in the routine manner by some subordinate officer. . But the substantial objection both under section 45 and under the notification issued thereunder can only be rectified by an election authority. It is true that neither section 45 nor the notification issued thereunder prescribing the manner of publication provides for the filing of applications by aggrieved parties. But when the power to amend after enquiry is conferred on the election authority, it necessarily implies that the person aggrieved can approach that authority with a prayer to make the necessary amendments. Section 45, though it empowers an election authority to make amendments suo motu, does not preclude his acting on an objection made by an aggrieved person. We, therefore, cannot say that there is no machinery provided under the Act for hearing the objections raised by the persons in the locality in respect of municipal electoral rolls.

( 12 ) IN the present case, from the aforesaid statement of facts, it is manifest that between 12th november, 1957, and sist November, 1957, there were nine days for preferring objections. The Government also did not issue any notification calling upon the persons in the locality to file objections within a particular time. As an electoral roll is the basis for the election, it is necessary to give to the public not only a notice calling for objections but also giving a reasonable time within which such objections should be filed, though the provisions of the Act do not enjoin on the government specifically to make any such provision, for amendments after enquiry by an election authority necessarily imply that there should be sufficient time for the said enquiry and reasonable opportunity for the persons affected to move the officer concerned to make such an enquiry. But, as no statutory provision has been infringed, we cannot say that the entire election programme is vitiated by any error. It is for the petitioners to prove that they were not able to file objections within the short time available to them. The petitioners are not ignorant villagers. They are all experienced politicians well-versed in the ways of election. One of them was the chairman of the Vijayawada Municipality for about eight years. The record placed before us shows that printed copies of the legislative electoral rolls are adapted as municipal electoral rolls with necessary modifications. There is, therefore, no scope for a name which is in the legislative electoral roll not being included in the municipal electoral roll or a name not included in the legislative electoral roll being included in a municipal electoral roll. It is not suggested that there is any such mistake. As only those persons, whose names are included in the legislative electoral roll, are entitled to be included in the municipal electoral roll, there is no scope lor any objection in this regard. The other objection will be in the nature of accidental or clerical mistakes. A provision has been made for their rectification by the government authorising the election officer for doing so. Such correction of mistakes cannot be equated to that of amendments which could only be done by an election authority under section 45. Indeed, under rule 4 of the Rules for the Conduct of Elections of Municipal Councillors, the election officer may interpret an entry in the electoral roll so as to overlook merely clerical or printing errors and under rule 7, in scrutinising the nomination papers, he shall not reject any nomination paper merely on the ground of an incorrect description of his name or of the name of his proposer or seconder or of any other particulars relating to the candidate or his proposer or seconder as entered on the electoral roll, if the identity of the candidate, proposer or seconder, as the case may be, is established beyond reasonable doubt. The rules, therefore, rightly make a distinction between substantial and accidental minor errors and enable the election officer to accept a candidate s name despite the incorrect description of his name if his identity is established. The correction of accidental minor mistakes, therefore, is not considered by the Legislature or the rule-making authority as an amendment to the electoral roll. The mistake in the name of Dr. Chalapathi Rao in the municipal electoral roll illustrates the nature of clerical mistakes that can be rectified. Some of the documents placed before us show that, as a matter of fact other persons filed applications for correcting mistakes and the election officer corrected them and published them in accordance with the rules prescribed. While we appreciate the contention of the learned counsel that the government or the authority concerned should have made a provision by prescribing a reasonable time for filing objections before an election authority we are satisfied, having regard to the qualifications prescribed for a person entitled to be placed on the municipal electoral roll, the manner in which the electoral rolls of the Municipalities are prepared and the time, as a matter of fact, available to the petitioners and others to raise objections if they chose, that the electorate, in the present case, have not in any way been prejudiced.

( 13 ) IN this context, strong reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the Chief Commissioner of Ajmer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, (1957) S. C. J. 191. . As this decision is the sheet-anchor of the learned counsel s argument, it is as well that we should scrutinise the decision with close attention and care. The facts in that case were : In view of the impending elections to the Ajmer Municipal Committee, the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer, framed the Ajmer State Municipalities Election Rules and published them in the government Gazette, dated 4th August, 1955. On 8th August, 1955, he notified the election programme and also authenticated and published an electoral roll. The relevant provisions of the Ajmer-Merwar Municipalities Regulation were as follows : section 30.- (1) A person shall not be deemed to be an elector for any purpose of this regulation or of any rule unless he is enrolled as an elector. (a) Every person who would be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIII of 1950) to be registered in the electoral roll for a Parliamentary constituency if that constituency had been co-extensive with the Municipality, and whose name is registered in the electoral roll for the Paliamentary constituency comprising the Municipality shall be entitled to be enrolled as an elector of the Municipality. Section 43.-The Chief Commissioner may, by notification, make rules consistent with this regulation for the purpose of regulating all or any of the following matters, viz. * * * * (e) the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and the adjudication of claims to be enrolled and objections to enrolment.

( 14 ) ADVERTING to the scope of the provisions, the Supreme Court observed at page 194 -"it is clear from section 30, sub-section (2) of the Regulation that in order to be entitled to be enrolled as an elector of a Municipality, a person has to fulfil two conditions, viz. , (1) that he should be entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (XLIT1 of 1950) to be registered in the electoral roll for a Parliamentary constituency if that constituency had been co-extensive with the municipality, and (a) that his name should be registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency comprising the Municipality. . . . . . . . . . . . The latter condition does not require any scrutiny for its fulfilment. The act of his being registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency would be apparent on the face of the electoral roll itself. The fulfilment of the first condition, however, would be subject to scrutiny and it would be open to any resident of the Municipality to object to the enrolment of a particular person as an elector of the Municipality. Even in the case of the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency it would be open to a person to apply for a revision of that roll by applying for a correction of the mistakes or misdescriptions which might have crept therein as also to apply to have his name registered in the roll if it had not been so registered provided he fulfilled the first condition, viz. , that he was entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constitutency. Objections could also be filed to the enrolment of particular persons as electois in the Parliamentary constituency and also in the Municipality. Apart from the preparation of the electoral roll for the Municipality it would therefore be necessary to have a revision of such electoral rolls and also the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and objections to such enrolment ".

( 15 ) IT is clear from the aforesaid provisions that a scrutiny should be made at the instance, of the parties concerned on the following two points : (i) whether the person, whose name was registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency was, in fact, entitled under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to be registered and (it) whether he possessed the qualification prescribed under that Act in this behalf. In that context, the Supreme Court observed :-"it is of the essence of these elections that proper electoral rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roll should be maintained, it is necessary that after the preparation of the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties concerned to scrutinise whether the persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled therein and entertaining objections to such enrolment. Unless this is done, the entire obligation cast upon the authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire no validity and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties concerned "they concluded :-" If that was the true position the electoral rolls of the Municipality which had been authenticated and published by the Chief Commissioner on August 8, 1955, was certainly not an electoral roll prepared in accordance with law on the basis of which the elections and poll to the Ajmer Municipal committee could be held either on September 9, 1955 or at any time thereafter ".

( 16 ) SUPERFICIALLY looked at, this judgment appears to support the contention of the petitioners. But, a deeper scrutiny brings out the essential differences between the provisions of the Act under the review of the Supreme Court and those of the district Municipalities Act. While in the Ajmer Regulation, a voter must satisfy two conditions, namely, that his name is entered on the Parliamentary electoral rolls and that he is entitled to be put on those rolls, in section 44 of the District municipalities Act the only qualification for a person to be put on the electoral roll of a Municipality is that his name is included in such part of the electoral roll for any Assembly constituency as relates to the Municipality or any parts thereof. While section 45 of the District Municipalities Act empowers an election authority to amend an electoral roll after making such enquiry as he thinks fit, under the Ajmer regulation, though section 43 authorises the Chief Commissioner to make rules for the adjudication of claims to be enrolled and objections to enrolment, no rule has been made under the section. Whereas the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued an order authorising an election officer to correct clerical mistakes and accidental omissions in the electoral roll, there does not seem to be any corresponding order made by the Chief Commissioner. While under the Rules for the conduct of Election of Municipal Councillors made under the District Municipalities act, the election officer is advised not to reject candidates on the ground of incorrect description of their names or the names of their proposer or seconder, no such rule is made under the Ajmer Regulation. The aforesaid differences are not merely in form but in substance. Under the Madras Act, in the words of the Supreme court : the act of his being registered in the electoral roll for the Parliamentary constituency would be apparent on the face of the electoral roll itself. In this case, only printed copies of the Assembly electoral rolls were utilised for preparing the municipal electoral rolls. Obviously, therefore, there would not be any omissions or additions, which are not found in the Assembly roll. Unlike under the Ajmer Regulation, under the Madras Act, there is no scope of an enquiry whether a person is entitled to be placed on the Assembly electoral roll. If there were any omissions or illegal additions to the Assembly electoral roll, it is not suggested that there is no procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to get them corrficted. The scope of the enquiry under the Madras Act is, therefore, very limited and section 45 provides ample safe-guard for bringing the municipal electoral roll into accord with the electoral roll of the relevant Assembly constituency. Further, due provision has already been made for correcting clerical mistakes. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that an opportunity was not given for the parties concerned to scrutinise whether persons enrolled as electors possessed the requisite qualifications, for the qualification of a person to be placed on the Municipal electoral roll under the Madras Act is a simple and easily ascertainable one, namely, whether his name is on the corresponding assembly roll. In our view, sufficient opportunity has been given, in the present case, for scrutinising the fact and indeed it is not suggested that there was any disparity between the two rolls. We are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and the principles laid down therein. But, in the present case, the principles laid down have not, in any way been violated. We, therefore, reject the first contention. The next argument is that as the Government issued a notification in May, 1956, reconstituting the wards and directed that the said alterations should take effect from the date of the next ordinary elections, they have no power to reconstitute the wards or make any changes therein so as to take effect from the date of the said elections. By notification, dated 5th May, 1956, the Government revised the wards and re-allocated the seats in the said wards. The relevant part of the notification reads :-"the Vijayawada Municipality shall with effect on and from the date of next ordinary elections to the council be divided into 30 wards as shown in Schedule I and that the wards shall return the number of councillors specified against them in Schedule II. "on 6th November, 1957, the Government again passed another G. O. in supersession of the previous notifications on the subject and directed that the Vijayawada municipality shall with effect on and from the date of the next ordinary elections to the council, be divided into 30 wards as shown in Schedule I and that the wards shall return the number of councillors specified against them in Schedule II annexed to that order. Admittedly, under this G. O. the boundaries of some wards have been changed and the number of councillors to be returned in some wards has been increased or reduced. The question is whether the Government has power to redistribute the wards before the date of the ordinary elections to the Council. Section 43 which governs the situation says :" For the purposes of election of councillors to a Municipal Council, the State Government after consulting the Muncipal Council may, by notification : (a) divide the municipality into wards, (b) determine the wards in which the seats, if any reserved under sub-section (3) of section 7 shall be set apart and (c) declare for whom such seats are reserved ". Sub-section (4) gives a discretion to the Government to direct, in case the notification materially alters the existing division of the Municipality into wards, that the alteration shall take effect from the date of the next ordinary elections. A combined reading of these provisions shows that the Government has power to divide the Municipality into wards and fix the seats in each of those wards. Sub-section (4) only confers a discretion on the Government to postpone the date of the notification taking effect to the next ordinary elections, i. e. , if the Government so exercised the discretion any casual vacancy in the Municipal Council will be filled up on the basis of the old wards. If it does not exercise the discretion, the notification comes into effect immediately operating not only only upon ordinary elections but also on elections to casual vacancies. Sub-section 4 does not, therefore, limit or otherwise circumscribe the power of the Government to divide the Municipality into wards on more than one occasion if section 43 confers such power on them. The short question, therefore, is whether the power conferred on the Government under section 43. can be exercised on more than one occasion between two elections.

( 17 ) THE provisions of the District Municipalities Act do not afford any guide to answer this question. For that purpose we must turn to the Madras General clauses Act, 1899. Section 13 of that Act says : "where an Act confers a power or imposes a duty, then the power may be exercised and the duty shall be performed from time to time as occasion requires ". The terms of this section are clear and unambiguous and they enable the authority on whom a power is conferred to exercise that power from time to time as occasion requires. Section 43 admittedly confers a power on the Government to divide the municipality into wards, to determine the wards in which the seats shall be set apart and declare for whom such seats are reserved. This power, though exercised once in May, 1956, was not exhausted. In view of the supervening circumstances, viz. , the supersession of the Council, the postponement of the elections and the exigencies of the changed situation, the Government thought a modification of the previous notification was necessary, and on that basis exercised the power conferred on them under section. 43 once again. Section 13 of the Madras General Clauses Act clearly confers such a power on the Government. This objection is overruled. It is then contended that a necessary condition for the exercise of the power under section 43 is the previous consultation of the Municipal Council and, as the municipal Council was superseded, the power thereunder could no longer be exercised till a new council was constituted. The legal effect of the supersession of a Municipal Council is embodied in section 41 (3) (a) and (b) of the Act. They read :"section 41. (3)-Supersession shall take effect from noon on the date of publication of the notification, if no date is therein specified, and thereupon the following consequences shall ensue :- (a) All the members of the Council as well as its Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall forthwith be deemed to have vacated their offices. (b) All or any of the functions of the Council and of its chairman including where the chairman is also the executive authority, its functions as such, may, during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed as for as may be, and to such extent as the State Government appoint in that behalf and any such person who is not a District Collector or Revenue Divisional Officer may,, if the State Government so direct, receive payment for his services from the municipal fund ; the state Government may determine the relations of such person with the municipal secretary if any with the district controlling officers and with themselves and where there is a commissioner the State- government may direct him to exercise and perform any powers and duties of the council in addition to his own ". Pursuant to the provisions of this section, the Vijayawada Municipal Council was superseded by order, dated 22nd June, 1956. The material part of that order reads :" Under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 41 of the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, the Governor of Andhra hereby appoints for the present Sri Y. Guru Reddi, Commissioner, vijayawada Municipality, as Special Officer of the Vijayawada Municipality to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and peform the functions of the Council and its chairman, in addition to his own duites of Commissioner of the Municipality except those relating to appeals (taxes and others ). The regional Inspector of Muncipal Councils and Local Boards, Central Range, Vijayawada, shall exercise the powers and discharge the duties relating to such appeals ".

( 18 ) THIS order in terms appointed the Commissioner as Special Officer of the Vijayawada municipality to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and perform the functions of the Council and its Chairman. One of the duties of the Municipal Council is to give advice if consulted by the Government under section 43 of the Act. It is said that the Municipal Council has no duty to give advice and indeed may refuse to give advice when asked by the Government. This interpretation of the provisions of section 43 (1) is, in our view, not in consonance with the spirit of the provisions. The previous consultation of the Municipal Council by the State is a condition precedent for the exercise of the powers conferred on it under section 43. The Legislature could not have visualised an attitude of non-co-operation on the part of a statutory body in enacting a provision. When a statute confers a power on the highest executive authority in the State to exercise it in consultation with a statutory body, which is subject to the general control of that authority, it is implicit, in the conferment of that power, that the consultant has a duty to give advice. The condition is imposed in public interests and the representatives of the city or town cannot obviously refuse to reply if they are consulted on the question of the division of the Municipality into wards and other connected questions under section 43. We would, therefore, hold that the section, by necessary implication, imposes a duty on the Municipality to express their opinion on a question in regard to which they are consulted.

( 19 ) THOUGH giving advice or expressing an opinion, if consulted may not be a duty it would, in any event, be a function of the Municipal Council. The dictionary meaning of function in its broad sense is the doing of a thing or " activity " in relation to an office, it means the duty peculiar to that office. But it is said that though the notification, dated 22nd June, 1956, appoints the Gommisssioner, Vijaya- wada Municipality, as Special Officer for the Vijayawada Municipality to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and perform the functions of the council and its chairman, section 41 (3) (b) does not authorise the Government to confer on the commissioner power to perform the functions of the council. Section 41 (3) (b) is in the following terms :"all or any of the functions of the council or its chairman, including where the chairman is also the executive authority, its functions as such may during the period of supersession, be exercised and performed as far as may be and to such extent as the State Government may determine by such person as the State Government appoint in that behalf and any such person who is not a district Collector or Revenue Divisional Officer, may, if the State Government so direct, receive payment for his services from the municipal fund; the State Government may determine the relations of such person with the Municipal Secretary if any with the district controlling officer ar. d with themselves, and where there is a Commissioner the State Government may direct him to exercise and perform any powers and duties of the council in addition to his own ".

( 20 ) IT is argued that, while the State Government may appoint any person other than the commissioner to discharge the functions of the council and of its chairman, it can only direct the Commissioner to exercise and perform any powers and duties of the council in addition to his own. The word 'functions' the argument proceeds, is of wider import than powers and duties. We do not think the Legislature intended to make any distinction in the content of the powers exercisable by a Special Officer other than a Commissioner and a Commissioner. The only distinction is that, in the case of a Special Officer, the Government has to prescribe the extent of the functions exercisable by him, whereas in the case of a Commissioner, they can direct him to exercise the powers and duties of a council. The last limb of the sub-section only enables the Government to direct the Commissioner appointed already to run the administration of the Municipality to perform the functions of the council. It cannot be construed to mean that the powers of the Commissioner are less than those of a Special Officer appointed under the Act. That apart, the section does not prevent the Commissioner from being appointed as Special Officer under the first limb of the section. The Government Order, dated 22nd June, 1956, appointed the Commissioner as Special Officer to exercise the powers, discharge the duties and perform the functions of the council. This order expressly entrusts the functions of the council to the Commissioner and it is one of the functions of the council to give advice if consulted by the State under section 43. The Commissioner takes the place of the municipal council and if he is consulted, the statutory requirement is satisfied.

( 21 ) NOR can we accede to the argument that a single officer nominated by the government could not in law be equated to a municipal council for the purpose of section 43 of the Act. When a statute expressly states that, in a particular contingency the Commissioner can discharge the duties or perform the functions of a council, it is not for the Courts to state that the policy underlying the section is not sound. That apart, there is nothing astounding or repugnant to public interests in such a provision being made in an emergency. We, therefore, hold that the Commissioner takes the place of the council and, if he is consulted, the condition laid down in section 43 of the Act is complied with.

( 22 ) EVEN so, the learned counsel contends that the State Government has not consulted the Commissioner within the meaning of section 41 (1) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the judgment of one of us (the Chief Justice) in Pushpam v. State of madras, (1953) 1 M. L. J. 88. in support of the contention. That decision only defines the meaning of the word 'consult' in section 43 of the Act. After considering the case-law and consulting dictionaries on the subject, it is observed, at page 90, thus :"the word ' consult' implies a conference of two or more persons or an impact of two or more minds in respect of a topic in order to enable them to evolve a correct, or at least a satisfactory solution. Such a consultation may take place at a conference table or through correspondence. The form is not material but the substance is important. It is necessary that the consultation shall be directed to the essential points and to the core of the subject involved in the discussions. The consultation must enable the consultor to consider the pros and cons of the question before coming to a decision. . . . . . . . Many instances may be found in statutes when an authority entrusted with a duty is directed to perform the same in consultation with another authority which is qualified to give advice in respect of that duty. It is true that the final order is made by and the ultimate responsibility rests with, the former authority. But it will not, and cannot be, performance of duty if no consultation is made and, even if made, is only informal compliance with the provisions. In either case, the order is not made in compliance with the provisions of the Act".

( 23 ) WE agree with the aforesaid observations. But the question in this case is whether the Government consulted the Commissioner in the sense indicated in the aforesaid observations. In the case of municipalities not superseded, the Government passed a G. O. No. 1040, dated 2 8th October, 1955, prescribing the mode of consultation. Under the notification,"the Commissioner of each Municipality should work out proposals for re-distribution of wards and where necessary for re-allocation of reserved states. The proposals so worked out should be placed before a committee consisting of the Municipal Chairman, the Revenue Divisional Officer having jurisdiction over the Municipality and the Regional Inspector of Municipal Councils and Local Boards concerned. This committee will scrutinise the proposals placed before it by the Commissioner and submit its report to the Inspector-General of Local Administration. The Inspector-General of Local administration will examine the proposals submitted by the committee and forward the proposals with his remarks thereon to the Municipal Council. The Municipal Council should consider the proposals of the committee with the remarks of the Inspector-General thereon and make its recommendations in respect of the proposals. The recommendations should be forwarded to the Inspector-General who will submit the proposals of the committee with the recommendations of the Council and hit own remarks to the Government. The Government will thereafter pass orders on the proposals ".

( 24 ) THE mode of consultation prescribed under that G. O. , it is admitted, was in accord with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision. The contention is that the commissioner is not consulted in accordance with the mode prescribed. Obviously the mode of consultation should differ in the case of a Commissioner, for the procedure prescribed would not be suitable in the case of consultation with a Commissioner.

( 25 ) THE question, therefore, is not whether the prescribed procedure was followed but whether as a matter of fact the Commissioner in the present case was consulted in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision. In the affidavit filed in W. P. No. 896 of 1957,it isstated that at, the instance of certain interested parties the Commissioner and Special Officer proceeded to Hyderabad with his staff and that a re-distribution of the wards was worked out in Hyderabad by the respondents hurriedly in three days, resulting in the notification now sought to be quashed. These allegations are denied in the counter. But assuming they are true, apart from the question of collusion, the facts alleged show that the Commissioner was as a matter of fact, consulted before the re-distribution was made. In the counter filed by the government in W. Ps. 864 and 896 of 1957, they have described the manner in which the Commissioner was consulted. The Government received representations on 6th May, 1957, to the effect that the distribution of the wards were not equitable. On a6th September, 1957, the Special Officer sent a report to the Inspector-General of Municipal Councils and Local Boards suggesting certain modifications to the scheme of division of the wards and the allotment of the reserved seats. On 28th october, 1957, the Inspector-General of Municipal Councils and Local Boards forwarded the report of the Special Officer to the Government with his detailed remarks thereon. The Government after considering the Special Officer's report and the inspector-General's remarks, issued the notification, dated 6th November, 1957, making amendment in the scheme of re-distribution that was effected earlier. On the aforesaid acts, it is manifest that the Government exercised the power under section 43 of the Act after consulting the Special Officer, who was acting in the place of the Municipal Council.

( 26 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel is that the electoral rolls were not prepared in the form prescribed by G. O. No. 904, dated 5th May, 1952. It is contended that the following defects are found in the electoral roll : in the title-page the names of the streets are not entered in the order in which they appear in the electoral roll. The title-pages do not show the number and the name of the street to which the number in the electoral roll refers.

( 27 ) THE enumeration of the house-numbers in the street included. in the wards where only parts of the streets are included in the ward is not made. The boundaries of some wards in the title-page do not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the notification, dated 6th November, 1957.

( 28 ) THE respondents in their counter deny the allegations made in the affidavit and aver that the title-pages do refer to the names of the streets and that the door-numbers and the corresponding voters' numbers are also enumerated in the fly-sheet. In support of the allegation in the affidavit during the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners filed before us some lists tabulating the defects found in the title-page of the electoral roll. The G. O. on which reliance is placed is not a statutory rule but embodies the administrative directions for preparing an electoral roll in such a way that it is intelligible to the voters. The title-page is intended to be the index of the list useful for easy reference. The learned counsel appearing for both parties have taken us through the electoral rolls. Though there are some defects as indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, we found that the electoral rolls were prepared in substantial compliance with the instructions. In the title- page, the name of the streets and the numbers of voters in that street are recorded. In the electoral roll, the numbers and names of the voters are given according to streets. Though in some cases the order of the streets in the title-page do not correspond with the order in the electoral roll, in most of the cases they do correspond. We are satisfied that the instructions given in the aforesaid G. O. have been substantially complied with and that the electoral roll has been clearly prepared and that it is not likely to cause any confusion during elections. We negative this contention.

( 29 ) LASTLY, it is contended that the division of the wards was effected by the Government arbitrarily and capriciously and therefore the elections held on the basis of the new wards are illegal. In the affidavit filed in support of W. P. No. 896 of 1957, it is stated that the Congress party, being the ruling party, in order to facilitate their return, has deliberately manipulated the wards so as to impair the chance of the rival parties succeeding in the elections and that power has been exercised mala fide and with ulterior motives. These allegations are denied in the counter. To appreciate this contention, some of the facts leading to the holding of the present elections may be recapitulated. The previous elections to the Municipal Council were held in 1952 on the basis of the wards re-distributed prior to the holding of those elections.

( 30 ) THE. next general elections in the ordinary course should have taken place in 1955. But, for some reasons, the Government extended the life of the Municipal Councils in the State till July, 1956. In September, 1955, the Municipal Council, Vijaya- wada, passed a resolution for the re-distribution of the wards. The Government passed G. O. No. 1040, dated 28th October, 1955, giving certain instructions to be followed for the reconstitution of the wards. The instructions therein were followed and the Government, by their order, dated 5th May, 1956, effected a re-distribution of the wards in the Vijayawada Municipality and also stated the number of councillors to be returned. By the said order, the said re-distribution was directed to come into effect on and from the date of the next ordinary elections. On 22nd June, 1956, the Vijayawada Municipal Council was superseded for a period of one year and that period was extended by six months which would expire by 21st December, 1957. As the time for new elections was fact approaching the authorities concerned were instructed to take steps for holding the elections. Indeed on 25th October, 1957, the Inspector-General of Local Administration gave a press statement to that effect. But on 5th November, 1957, the Government issued an extraordinary notification re-distributing once again the wards in the Vijayawada Municipality and published the same in the Gazette, dated 6th November, 1957. The electoral rolls were published on 12th November, 1957 and the election programme was notified on 13th November, 1957, to the effect that nominations will be received on 21st November, 1957. The argument of the learned counsel is that the re-distribution of the wards was made hurriedly and capriciously by the Government just before the elections with a view to shift the voting strength in favour of the nominees. It is argued by the learned government Pleader that on representations made by the affected parties, slight modifications like boundary adjustment were made in order to achieve homogeneity, territorial contiguity and to reduce the difference in population. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a statement in an attempt to show that re-distribution was not influenced by any of the aforesaid considerations but was done only arbitrarily for ulterior purposes. The statement gives the following particulars. "inequality.-Inequality is more prominent under 1957 notification than under 1956 ; for example the maximum voting strength under 1956 was 4,000 the minimum was 2,500, whereas under 1957 thetnaximum voting strength was 5,400 and the minimum was 1,900 or less. Homogeneity : If by homogeneity is meant that areas inhabited by Muslims, Indian Christians, scheduled Castes and Caste Hindus should be carved into one electoral ward, that is disturbed by the notification. 1. The 12th ward had a population which formed 80 per cent, of the voters. Now under the new arrangement of 1957 Haddu Sahib Street and Drain Street of the old lath ward where the muslims formed about 95 per cent, was removed from it and a predominantly Hindu area namely abotu Appanna Pakalu from the old 13th ward was tacked to the 12th ward. The result is that a ward with overwhelming Muslim voters has been converted into one where the. preponderance of Muslims was considerably reduced. 2. The 16th ward was exclusively inhabited by Indian Christians and Scheduled Castes, kedareswarapet and Satyanarayanapuram of ward 20 was a predominantly Caste-Hindu and brahmin locality. This Kedareswarapet has been added to the Baptistpalem (16th ward) which was exclusively inhabited by Christian and Scheduled Castes. 3. Similarly toward No. 11, which was predominantly inhabited by Vysyas was added a portion of the 30th ward inhabited mostly by Scheduled Castes, etc. Boundaries.-A comparison of the boundaries of wards carved in 1956 and that carved in 1957 would show that the boundaries were more clear-cut in 1956 than in 1957. 17th Ward. 1956-G. O. No. 674. 1757- G. O. No. 1976. SOUTHERN BOUNDARY : Ryves Canal from the junction with Marupillai Chetty's Street to Railway Bridge. SOUTH : Start from the southeast corner (Besant Road) west. Walk along the right bank of Ryves Canal to meet the bridge on Ryves Canal near Fire Station and go round Ranga statuette mound and then go eastward along Gopalakrishnayya road upto the junction with G. N. T. Road, go southwards along Bandar Canal regulator bridge and then turn westwards along G. N. T. Road, go upto its junction with Sivasankara Road and go along Sivasanakara Road to meet railway line at Krishna Bridge. EAST : Masid Road and Museum Road from Ryves Canal to Bandar Canal. 23rd Ward. EAST : Start from the left bank of Ryves canal opposite to north-east corner of Gollapudi Narasimharao's build-idings and proceed southwards along the street to meet Annadana Samajam road. Crossing Annadana Samajam Road proceed further in Janda Street to meet Eluru Road. Crossing Eluru Road go along Venkateswara Rao Street into Prakasam Street, turn east and go along the street leading to the Court to meet Gopalareddy Road to meet Rajarajeswaramma Street to southwards along Rajarajeswaramma Street to meet the left bank of Bandar Canal. 24th Ward. FAST : Dr. Ramachandra Rao Road. Murty Street, Straight line running to Mission bungalow, P. W. D. offices Police Parade ground, Masulipatam-Hyderabad road to Bandar Canal. EAST : From the point of the left bank of Ryves Canal opposite to junction of Annadana Samajara Road and Veeramacheneni Gangadhara Road to the above road junction. Then crossing Annadana Samajam Road proceed southwards in Veeramacheni ni Gaugadhara rao Street upto G. N. T. Road. Then go eastwards along the G. N. T. Road to meet the continuation road of Middi sowbhagyarayudu Road, go along the same road to meet Prakasam Road then go eastwards along the same road to meet Dornakal Mission Road then go along Dornakal Mission road and the P. W. D. private road to meet Bandar Road, go westwards along Bandar Road to meet the lane leading to St. Anne's Hospital, go along the lane to meet the left bank of Bandar Canal. "

( 31 ) THE Government Pleader filed the following statement giving the changes that were made in the re-distribution of the wards and the circumstances under which the were made. "1. Total number of wards under G. O. Ms. No. 674 L. A. , dated 5th May, 1956, were 30. Under G. O. Ms. No. 1976, L. A. , dated 5th November, 1957, they are also 30. So no change in the total number of wards. 2. The total strength for the council under the G. O. No. 674, dated 5th May, 1956, was 36. Under G. O. No. 1976 it is also 36. No change. 3. (a) Under G. O. No. 674, three seats were reserved for women and three seats for the scheduled Caste. Under G. O. No. 1976 also the same number of seats are reserved for both the classes. (b) One seat was reserved for the Scheduled Castes in each of ward Nos. 6 and I4. under G. O. No. 674 of 1956. No change now. The third seat was reserved in ward No. 30 under G. O. No. 674. Under G. O. No. 1976 it is reserved in ward No. 17 because the voting strength of the scheduled Caste in that ward is 658. Voting strength of the Scheduled Castes in the present ward no. 30 is 246. The Congress and the elite of the town suggested reservation in wards Nos. 5, 15 and 18. (c) One woman seat was reserved in each of the wards Nos. 5, 20 and 23 under G. O. No. 674. One seat is reserved in each of the wards Nos. 3, 6 and 24 under G. O. No. 1976. The Congress and elite of the town asked for reservation in ward Nos. 3, 21 and 24. 4. (a) There is no alteration of wards Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 22, a8 and 29 under G. O. No. 1976. (b) Modification in respect of wards Nos. 12 and 13 was made only in conformity with the proposals of the comimttee cf which Sri T. V. S. Chalapathi Rao and T. Venkateshwara Rao, the present petitioners were members. (c) The boundaries of wards Nos. 15 and 27 are fixed as in 1952. (d) The Corgress and the elite of the town suggested alteration of wards Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, n, ix, 13, 14, 18, 20, 82, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 (total 21 wards ). The Government did not agree to it in respect of ward Nos. I, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 22 (9 wards ). In addition no change was made in ward Nos. 5, 28 and 29. In ward Nos. 12, 13, 15 and 27 modification was made as stated supra. The proposals of the Congress in respect of wards Nos. 2, 3 and 11 were not also accepted by the Government".

( 32 ) IT will be seen from the aforesaid statement that there was no alteration of wards nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 22, 28 and 29, that the alterations were made in respect of the other wards after the Government satisfied themselves on the basis of the representations made to them and that in regard to some wards, reservations made to women and the Scheduled Castes were changed from one ward to another to give representation to that ward where the members of the Scheduled Castes or women as the case may be are of greater strength than in the other wards. The proceedings show that on the representations made by the members of the public, the Inspector-General of Local Administration called for suggestions of the Special officer, and after receiving the suggestions he made recommendations to the Government who accepted them. The State Government has jurisdiction under section 43 to divide the Municipality into wards and to determine the wards in which reserved seats should be set apart. They have re-distributed the wards in consultation with the commissioner and the Inspector-General of Local Boards for the reasons mentioned by them. The said re-distribution is purely an administrative act. It cannot be challenged except by alleging and establishing that the Government did it mda fide, capriciously or arbitrarily. Though the last-minute change, which has the effect of changing the voting strength of the wards and shifting the special representation from one ward to another, may give rise to some suspicions it may also have been done in bona fide exercise of the power to rectify some obvious defects before the elections are held. Once it is conceded that the modifications were made bona fide, it was necessary to do them quickly in view of the impending elections. It has not been established that the modifications were made to increase the voting strength of the congress party in any particular ward or to decrease the strength of the rival parties in other wards. On the material placed before us it is not possible to hold that the government acted mala fide or capriciously in exercising the power under section 43 of the Act.