The right to challenge an election is a creature of a statute and not a common law right. Rules framed under a statute to govern the decision of election disputes are not applicable to petitions filed prior to the promulgation of the rules.

CHANDRA REDDY, CJ.

( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks the issuance of a wr it of certiorari for emoval of the order of the Election Commissioner avoiding the election of the etitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was elected the President of the Payakaraopeta Panchayat Samithi on 5th November, 1959, with a majority of fifteen, he having secured 23 votes as against eight votes polled by his opponent, the respondent. Immediately, the respondent filed an election petition, O. P. No. 26 of 1959, under section 11 of the Andhra pradesh Panchayat Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act (XXVI of 1959) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act ) on 10th November, 1959, to set aside the election of the petitioner on the ground (i) that the petitioner committed election offences under sections 171-6 and 171-E, Indian Penal Code, in that he treated fifteen Presidents of the Village Panchayats to feasts for some days prior to the election and transported them to polling stations in vehicles hired by him, and (ii) that the respondent was disqualified under section 9 (d) of the Act by reason of having a subsisting interest in some contracts for some work being done by the Samithi in question. The petitioner filed a counter denying the allegations relating to the commission of election offences and asserting that a petition under section 11 of the Act to set aside an election was not maintainable. Sometime later, the respondent instituted o. S. No. 181 of 1959 on the file of the District Munsif s Court, Yellamanchili, for identical reliefs with similar allegations.

( 3 ) PENDING the suit and the original petition, the Government framed rules under section 69 of the Act to govern the decision of election disputes and they came into operation on 3rd March, 1960. The respondent, in order to take advantage of the rules, applied for amendment of the petition to convert it into one under the aforementioned rules. Despite the opposition of the petitioner that the application for amendment was not sustainable as the rules were inapplicable to applications filed prior to the promulgation of the rules, the Election Commissioner accepted the petition for amendment in the view that they were procedural in nature and would govern petitions pending on the date of the coming into force of the rules.

( 4 ) THEREAFTER, he recorded evidence, allowed the petition and set aside the election accepting the case of the respondent as regards the feeding of the Presidents of the panchayats and transporting them in his vehicles to the polling stations while rejecting it as regards the respondent s disqualification under section 9 (d) of the Act. It is this order of the Election Commissioner that is impugned before us in this writ petition.

( 5 ) IT is urged by Sri Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the view of the Election Commissioner that the law enacted by these rules was merely procedural and would, therefore, apply to petitions pending on the date the rules, came into effect, is erroneous. It is maintained by the learned counsel that what is contained in these rules is substantive law and as such would not affect petitions filed long before the rules were made. We have to give effect to this submission. There can be little doubt that the right created for the first time by the rules to challenge an election is a substantive right and, it does not pertain to the field of procedure. It is now well-settled that the right to call in question an election is a creature of a statute and not a common law right. The rules have given to an aggrieved party the right to question the validity of elections and also laid down the grounds that could be urged in support of such a petition. We do not, therefore, think that these rules are merely procedural in nature. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Sohanlal v. Custodian of Evacuee properly , (1956) S. C. J. 171 relied on by the learned Advocate-General for the respondent has no analogy here. The point for determin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document