The power under Article 226 cannot be exercised to set right all the illegalities and substitute for all remedies unless it is shown that substantial injustice has been caused to the person. The Courts cannot take over the administrative functioning from the Election Authorities or the Returning officer who are the constitutional authorities as well as the statutory authorities vested with the power in matters of election.

M. S. LIBERHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) IN these two Writ Petitions, the petitioners who have contested in the general Election pertaining to 185-Nandikotkur Assembly Constituency as independent candidates have sought for a Mandamus to the respondents to permit the counting agents on their behalf in the counting hall at the time of counting of votes on 6-10-1999 in respect of the said Constituency, on the apprehension that they will not be permitted to take the counting agents.

( 2 ) CURIOUSLY, no order rejecting the representations of the petitioners has been produced. Further, the counting is scheduled to be held on 6-10-1999. The Returning Officer, being the administrative head for the supervision and conduct of elections of the constituency, taking into account the exigencies such as space available, number of counting agents to be allowed in the counting hall and other aspects, will take appropriate decision regarding the grant of permission to allow the counting agents in the counting hall. The returning Officer has not taken any such decision in the matter and there is still time for taking decision in the matter.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the statutory Act provides for permitting the counting agents and the petitioners cannot be debarred from having the facility of appointing the counting agents on their behalf. As already stated, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have been debarred from appointing the counting agents by any order of the Election Authority. Even assuming that any order was passed declining to give such permission, this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 cannot take over the superintendence and day-today administrative work of the Returning Officer. The Returning Officer being under the supervision of the Election Commission who will take appropriate decision in the light of the statutory provisions and in accordance with the guidelines of the Election Commission. There is no gainsaying that election law is a statutory law and there is no equitable right vested in any person or it is a right where equities can be gone into in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226. Conduct of free, fair and independent elections is the basic concept for any democratic set up and the violation of any rights of the contesting candidates has been taken care of by the Legislature by providing statutory provisions and regulations which will have to be strictly followed by the election authorities who are empowered to deal with them. It is the responsibility of the election authorities to see that elections are conducted freely, fairly and independently and in case where violation of any rights or irregularities which are grave in nature and which has adversely affected the result of any contesting candidate are noticed, then, in such cases only appropriate directions can be issued by the Courts including setting aside the election. No directions can be issued like deployment of army or police or to permit such number of persons as counting agents or arranging of the counting table in a particular manner etc. , or any other facility which is administrative in character.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners very vehemently relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Venkatachalam vs. A. Swamickan in order to contend that there is no bar under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the action of the Election Authority and that unless there is clear bar to jurisdiction of the High Court, the power under Article 226 can be exercised when there is any violation of statutory provision or constitutional provisions and when recourse cannot be had to the provisions of the Act for the appropriate relief. He contended that since Section 47 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 empowers the contesting candidates to appoint counting agents and since such a permission was not given to the petitioners by the election autho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document