turned, whether or not it is found necessary to take a poll. Vide : N. P. Ponnuswam; v. Returning Officer, Numakkal Constituency & Ors. {1 ) The list of voters must, therefore, a forti,m remain the same throughout the process of election. There cannot be one list of voters for determini11g the eligibility to stand as a candidate and another for determining the eligibility to vote, at the same ele~tion. That would not only be irrational, but would also introduce confusion and uncertainty in the election process. Candidates would not know at the time when they file their nominations as to what is the strength and composition of the electorate in the division m which they are contesting the election. They would also be handicapped in canvassing for votes. It would indeed be a strange and anomalous position if there were two or more different lists of voters at different stages of the same elecuon. Sub-s. (1) of s.14 does not contemplate a bst 0£ voters which keeps on changing from time to time during the election · process. It deems the Electoml Roll for the territonal area of the divisimt, in force at the relevant time !o be the list of voters for the division "for the purpose of the Act", that is for the purpose of electio11 which is. the whole process culminating in a candidate being declared elected and not merely polling. The same list of voters is, therefore. to prevail for all stages ill the election. This we find emphasised also in sub-s. (3) of s.14 which enacts that everv oerson wh"se name is in the list of voters referred to ;n sub-s. ( 1) shall be qualified to vote at the election of a member for the division to which •uch hst pertains. Sub-s. (2) of s.15 also points in the same direction. It says that "the list of voters shall be conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining under this section whether the person is qualified or is not qualified to vote or is qualified or is not qualified to be elected as the case may be, at an election." The reference here, •as a matter of plain grammar, is indisputably to the same list of voters which is to be conclusive evidence for both purposes. It is, therefore, clear, on a proper interpretation of the provision of the Act that the Legislature did not intend that the list of voters should change from time to time during the process of election and the relevant Ellc•oral Roll for the purpose of preparation of the list of voters must consequent! y be taken to be _the Electoral Roll in force at the date when the election process commenced, that is, the date when the calendar of events was published. The same view was takei11 by a Division Bench of the Mysore }-Iigh Court in Shivappa Chanamallappa Jogendra v. Basavannappa Gadlappa Banker. (2 ) We are in agreement with that view. The poll in the pre-sent case must, therefore, be taken on the basis of the list of voters for each division prepared with reference to the Electoral Roll in force on 7th December, 1974, that being the date on which the calendar of eveints was published by the Returning Officer.
