1994 Supreme(AP) 558

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY, S.SAGHIR AHMAD
P.Ravindra Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Election Commission - Respondent
Decided On : 11-29-94

The Election Commission has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to superintend, direct and control the conduct of elections, and can recommend rescission of the notification issued under Section 15 of the Act by which the election process was initiated in the State.

Headnote:

ELECTION - POWER OF ELECTION COMMISSION - RESCISSION OF NOTIFICATION - POWER OF GOVERNOR - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 - SECTION 21 - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 15 - ARTICLE 324 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 329 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 327 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 328 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ELECTION COMMISSION - POWER TO RECOMMEND RESCISSION OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE ACT - GOVERNOR - POWER TO ISSUE NOTIFICATION CALLING UPON CONSTITUENCIES TO ELECT NEW REPRESENTATIVES - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 15 - POWER TO VARY OR RESCIND - CONDITIONS FOR EXERCISE OF POWER - NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY GOVERNOR ON RECOMMENDATION OF ELECTION COMMISSION - SUBSEQUENT NOTIFICATION RESCINDING EARLIER NOTIFICATION ALSO ISSUED ON RECOMMENDATION OF ELECTION COMMISSION - COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS - NOTIFICATION PROPERLY ISSUED BY GOVERNOR - WRIT PETITION AND APPEAL DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

The Governor of Andhra Pradesh issued a Notification No. 597/ Elec. F/94, dated 1-11-1994 under Sec. 15 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 calling upon all the Assembly Constituencies of Andhra Pradesh including 163, Gorantla Assembly Constituency, to elect their members for the State Assembly. The Election Commission of India issued a Fax Message to the Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, saying that the message of the Chief Electoral Officer, the message of the District Election Officer and the message of the Superintendent of Police quoted in the message of the District Election Officer, did not clearly and specifically state whether Sri Siddaiah and his proposer were ultimately prevented from filing the nomination paper. The Commission also wanted to know through Fax message whether nomination papers were in the personal possession of Sri Siddaiah at the time of kidnapping, and wanted a more detailed report whether Sri Siddaiah was physically prevented from filing his nomination paper either personally or through his proposer. The Chief Secretary, by Fax Message dated 10-11-1994 informed tine Commission that the Collector and District Election Officer, Anantapur, had reported that Sri Siddaiah did not carry the nomination paper with him at the time of kidnapping, but he was to go to the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Gorantla, to obtain the blank nomination paper and after filling up the same he was to hand over the nomination papers to the Asst. Returning Officer at Gorantla, but this could not be done on account of his kidnapping and he could not reach the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, nor could he file the nomination paper.

Finding of the Court:

The Election Commission was justified in recommending to the Governor to cancel the notification issued under Sec. 30 by the impugned notification dated 11-11-1994. The learned Single Judge by his decision has not added to the Parliamentary legislation, as is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but has held, and in our opinion, correctly, that apart from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Commission still had the power under Article 324 to issue appropriate directions in relation to the election in question. The impugned notification has been issued with the aid of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, and since the provisions of General Clauses Act cannot be invoked in the instant case, the notification is liable to be quashed. The Governor becomes functus officio on issuing a notification under Section 15 of the Act and his powers are exhausted. The Governor having set in motion the election process cannot legally retreat his steps and interfere with the election process by issuing a subsequent notification.

Issues: 1. Whether the Election Commission had the power to recommend rescission of the notification issued under Section 15 of the Act by which the election process was initiated in the State? 2. Whether the power, in any case, had been exercised in an unfair and arbitrary manner on the biased reports of the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh and, therefore, its recommendation to rescind the notification dated 1-11-1994 is vitiated? 3. Whether the impugned notification issued by the Governor in pursuance of the said recommendation was liable to be set aside and the earlier notification issued under Section 15 was liable to be restored? 4. Whether the writ petition and appeal were maintainable in view of Article 329 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Election Commission has the power to recommend rescission of the notification issued under Section 15 of the Act by which the election process was initiated in the State, as it has plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to superintend, direct and control the conduct of elections. 2. The power was not exercised in an unfair and arbitrary manner on the biased reports of the Chief Electoral Officer, Andhra Pradesh, as the Commission had acted after obtaining full details of the incident from various sources and had proceeded in the matter only on being satisfied that the election process in 163, Gorantla Constituency had been "irretrievably sullied". 3. The impugned notification issued by the Governor in pursuance of the said recommendation was not liable to be set aside and the earlier notification issued under Section 15 was not liable to be restored, as the Governor had the power to issue notification calling upon constituencies to elect new representatives and the power to vary or rescind such notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. 4. The writ petition and appeal were maintainable in view of Article 329 of the Constitution, as the bar to interference by Court created by Article 329 of the Constitution did not apply to the present case.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, without any order as to costs.