ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. S. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Ms. S. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, Election Commission of India [ECI] for the respondent nos. 2, 4 & 6; and Ms. U. Das, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10. 2. The petitioners, 154 in nos., have joined together to institute the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating that they have a common cause of action to espouse. 3. The petitioners have stated that they are residents of villages adjacent to each other, namely, No. 3 Rajapukhuri, Saharia Pam, Gelajan, Naojan, No. 2 Dalanipathar, Dalanipathar, Madhyapathar, under Uriamghat, District – Golaghat, Assam. The petitioners have stated that for a long period of time, they have been casting their votes in both State Legislative Assembly Elections and/or Parliamentary Elections by virtue of enrolment of their names as voters in the concerned electoral rolls, published from time to time. The petitioners have claimed that they had cast their votes in the previous elections to the State Legislative Assembly and/or Parliament as the voters from No. 107 Sarupathar Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], District - Golaghat, Assam. All the petitioners were issued Electors Photo Identity Cards [EPICs] by the Election Commission of India. 4. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have come to learn that in the electoral rolls published after the recent exercise of Special Revision initiated by the Election Commission of India [ECI], the word ‘deleted’ are marked against the names of the petitioners. Meaning thereby, their names are not included in the electoral rolls and they will be prevented from exercising the right to franchise in the upcoming Legislative Assembly Election in Assam where the date, 09.04.2026 has been notified as the date of polling. 5. Mr. Bhuyan has contended that in order to delete the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous electoral roll, such a person must be given a prior opportunity of being heard. But none of the petitioners was afforded any prior opportunity of being heard. Mr. 5. Mr. Bhuyan has contended that in order to delete the name of a voter whose name was included in the previous electoral roll, such a person must be given a prior opportunity of being heard. But none of the petitioners was afforded any prior opportunity of being heard. Mr. Bhuyan has further submitted that the deletion of the names of the petitioners is perhaps attributable to an eviction drive carried out during the month of September, 2025 in and around Uriamghat area in Golaghat district where the petitioners have been residing for a long period of time exercising their right to franchise. The respondent authorities in the State Government had carried out an eviction drive in and around Uriamghat area on the ground that the area comes under forest areas of Nambor Reserve Forest and Doyang Reserve Forest. As there is restriction / prohibition for acquiring status of landowner in reserved forest areas declared under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1887, the petitioners were unjustifiably brought within the purview of the eviction drive. The petitioners have claimed that their places of residence do not fall within the boundaries of the two reserved forests. 6. It is contended that a number of litigation ensued against the eviction exercise carried by the State authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled Abdul Khalek and others vs. the State of Assam and others, 2026 INSC 140 , has taken note of a policy decision taken by the State Government to lay down an elaborate procedure to remove unauthorized occupation from the reserved forests, etc. Taking note of the procedure laid down, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the course of action to be adopted by the State Government for removal of encroachment from reserved forests contains sufficient procedural safeguards. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that till a speaking order is passed after following the procedure laid down therein, the parties are to maintain status quo. The petitioners have canvassed that by virtue of the said status quo order, the petitioners are still continuing to reside in the addresses, as recorded in the EPICs, that is, within the territorial limits of No. 107 Sarupathar LAC. Mr. Bhuyan has, thus, contended that the respondent authorities have acted illegally and arbitrarily to delete the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls. 7. Ms. Mr. Bhuyan has, thus, contended that the respondent authorities have acted illegally and arbitrarily to delete the names of the petitioners from the electoral rolls. 7. Ms. Kataki, learned Standing Counsel, ECI has submitted that ordinarily, prior to deletion of name of a person from electoral roll, such a person is to be given a prior opportunity of being heard and any deletion of name can only be made after proper verification of facts. She has submitted that the petitioners have alleged that no prior and reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to them prior to deletion of their names from the electoral rolls. Assuming such contention of the petitioners is correct, then the petitioners have statutory remedies of filing an application under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [‘the R.P. Act’, for short] at first, and thereafter, appeals under Section 24 of the R.P. Act. Instead of availing such statutory remedies, the petitioners have directly approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. Ms. Kataki has contended that since the matter of eligibility of the petitioners to be enrolled or included as voters in the electoral roll would also require determination of certain factual issues, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 8. As per sub-section [3] of Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [‘the R.P. Act’, for short], which is with a non-obstante clause, the ECI may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a Special Revision of the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may think fit. By a Notification dated 17.11.2025, the ECI had directed a Special Revision in exercise of the powers under Section 21 of the R.P. Act with reference to 01.01.2026 as the qualifying date in the State of Assam. After carrying the Special Revision, the electoral roll has been published on 10.02.2026. 9. As the provisions of Section 22, Section 23 and Section 24 of the R.P. Act are of relevance, they are reproduced herein for ready reference :- 22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls . After carrying the Special Revision, the electoral roll has been published on 10.02.2026. 9. As the provisions of Section 22, Section 23 and Section 24 of the R.P. Act are of relevance, they are reproduced herein for ready reference :- 22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls . — If the electoral registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him or on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency – [a] is erroneous or defective in any particular, [b] should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ground that the person concerned has changed his place of ordinary residence within the constituency, or [c] should be deleted on the ground that the person concerned is dead or has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in that roll, the electoral registration officer shall , subject to such general or special directions, if any, as may be given by the Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete the entry after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed : Provided that before taking any action on any ground under clause [a] or clause [b] or any action under clause [c] on the ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to be taken in relation to him after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed. 23. Inclusion of names in electoral rolls . — [1] Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll. 23. Inclusion of names in electoral rolls . — [1] Any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll. [2] The electoral registration officer shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed : Provided that if the applicant is registered in the electoral roll of any other constituency, the electoral registration officer shall inform the electoral registration officer of that other constituency and that officer shall, on receipt of the information, strike off the applicant's name from that roll. [3] No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry shall be made under Section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election [4] The electoral registration office may for the purpose of establishing the identify of any person require that such person may furnish the Aadhaar number given by the Unique Identification Authority of India as per the provisions of the Aadhaar [Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services] Act, 2016 [18 of 2016] : Provided that the electoral registration officer may also require the Aadhaar number from persons already included in the electoral roll for the purpose of authentication of entries in electoral roll and to identify registration of name of the same person in the electoral roll of more than one constituency or more than once in the same constituency. [5] Every person whose name is included in the electoral roll may intimate his Aadhaar number to such authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed, on or before a date to be notified by the Central government in the Official Gazette. [5] Every person whose name is included in the electoral roll may intimate his Aadhaar number to such authority in such form and manner as may be prescribed, on or before a date to be notified by the Central government in the Official Gazette. [6] No application for inclusion of name in the electoral roll shall be denied and no entries in the electoral roll shall be deleted for inability of an individual to furnish or intimate Aadhaar number due to such sufficient cause as may be prescribed : Provided that such individual may be allowed to furnish such other alternate documents as may be prescribed. 24. Appeals.— An appeal shall lie within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed — [a] to the district magistrate or additional district magistrate or executive magistrate or district collector or an office of equivalent rank, from any order of the electoral Registration Officer under Section 22 or Section 23. [b] to the chief electoral officer, from any order of the district magistrate or the additional district magistrate under clause [a]. 10. As per the provisions contained in Section 22, if any deletion of a person’s name from the electoral roll is to be made on the grounds mentioned in clause [a], clause [b] and clause [c] by the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer, then such deletion can be made only after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed [that is, deletion] to be taken in relation to him, that too, after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be prescribed. As per Section 2[h] of the R.P. Act, ‘prescribed’ means prescribed by rules made under the R.P. Act. 11. As per the provisions of Section 23, any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the Electoral Registration Officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll. The Electoral Registration Officer shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be. The Electoral Registration Officer shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein after proper verification of facts in such manner as may be. No direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under Section 23, after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election. 12. It is within the right of the petitioners to make an application under Section 23 for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll before the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer as, according to the petitioners, their names were unjustifiably deleted from the electoral roll without following the procedure prescribed in Section 22. 13. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 [‘the Registration Rules’, for short] are framed under the R.P. Act, 1950. Rule 26 of the Registration Rules has provided for correction of entries and inclusion of names in electoral rolls. Sub-rule [1] of Rule 26 has prescribed for the forms for an application under sub-section [1] of Section 23. As per sub-rule [3] of Rule 26, the Registration Officer shall, immediately on receipt of such application, direct that one copy thereof be pasted in some conspicuous place in his office together with a notice inviting objections within a period of seven days from the date of such posting. A mandate is contained in sub-rule [4] of Rule 26 to the effect that the Registration Officer shall, as soon as may be after the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule [3], consider the application and objections thereto, if any, received by him and shall, if satisfied, direct the inclusion, deletion, correction or transposition of entries in the roll, as may be necessary. A mandate is also embodied to the effect that when an application is rejected by the Registration Officer, he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. 14. Section 24 of the R.P. Act, 1950 has provided for appeals against any order passed by the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer under Section 23 of the R.P. Act, 1950. 14. Section 24 of the R.P. Act, 1950 has provided for appeals against any order passed by the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer under Section 23 of the R.P. Act, 1950. A first appeal would lie to the District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate or Executive Magistrate or the District Collector or an office of equivalent rank from and order of the Electoral Registration Officer under Section 23. A second appeal would lie to the Chief Electoral Officer from any order of the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate. 15. From the afore-stated statutory provisions, it is evident that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the deletion of their names from the electoral roll of No. 107 Sarupathar LAC, District - Golaghat, Assam, the petitioners have the statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 23[1] of the R.P. Act, 1950 at first. The jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer is obligated to pass an order on such application within the prescribed time limit either allowing the application for inclusion or rejecting the application. If any application is to be rejected, then the Electoral Registration Officer shall have to record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such rejection. If in the event application[s] of the petitioner[s] is/are rejected, then the petitioner[s] has/have the statutory remedy of filing two appeals, one after the other, under Section 24 of the R.P. Act. 16. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have all the supporting documents to support their claim that their names have been arbitrarily deleted from the electoral rolls published for No. 107 Sarupathar LAC, District - Golaghat, Assam and the petitioners are in a position to file such an application under Section 23[1] of the R.P. Act, 1950 within the shortest possible time. 17. This Court has taken notice of the fact that by a Notification dated 16.03.2026 published in the Assam Gazette on 16.03.2026, the ECI has appointed the dates of election to the Legislative Assembly Constituencies of Assam. As per the Notification, the last date of making nominations is 23.03.2026 and the date by which the election is to be completed is 06.05.2026. Therefore, any application filed under Section 23[1] of the R.P. Act is possible to be considered after 06.05.2026. 18. As per the Notification, the last date of making nominations is 23.03.2026 and the date by which the election is to be completed is 06.05.2026. Therefore, any application filed under Section 23[1] of the R.P. Act is possible to be considered after 06.05.2026. 18. In view of presence of such statutory, adequate and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions :- [i] The petitioner[s] will file application[s] under Section 23[1] R.P. Act before the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer along with the documents in support of their claim for inclusion of the name[s] in the electoral roll published for No. 107 Sarupathar LAC as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 1 [one]month from today; [ii] If such application[s] are filed, the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer shall consider such application[s] in terms of the mandate contained in Section 23, R.P.Act read with Rule 26 of the Registration Rules so that the application[s] is/are decided by abiding to the statutory timeline; [iii] In the event the Electoral Registration Officer finds that any of the petitioner[s]name[s] deserve[s] to be included in the electoral roll, the necessary order[s]is/are to be passed accordingly; [iv] If in the event the Electoral Registration Officer rejects any application, then the same shall be with a brief statement of reasons and the order is to be communicated to the concerned petitioner forthwith thereafter; and [v] If after the decision of the jurisdictional Electoral Registration Officer any of the petitioners finds himself aggrieved in any manner, such petitioner would be at liberty to avail the statutory remedy under Section 24 of the R.P. Act.