(Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.)

This appeal is directed against order dated 27-06-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.M.P.No.16042 of 2006 in W. P. No.12924 of 2006 whereby he suspended the operation of letter No.329/SEC-B1/2006 dated 11-06-2006 issued by the State Election Commission (for short the Commission) whereby the candidates contesting election to various Panchayat Raj Bodies have been directed to furnish list of persons to be appointed as polling agents at least one day before the date of poll.

2. In the writ petition filed by him, respondent No.1 questioned the legality of the direction issued by the Commission by contending that the same is ultra vires to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short the Act) and the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 (for short the Rules). He relied on order dated 23-06-2006 passed by the High Court in WPMP NO.15806 of 2006 in Writ Petition NO.12718 of 2006, whereby operation of similar instructions issued by the Commission vide Circular No.329/SEC/P1/2006 dated 24-04-2006 was suspended and pleaded that in the absence of any specific rule to that effect, the Commission cannot direct the candidates to submit names of polling agents at least one day before the date of polling.

3. On a consideration of the averments contained in the writ petition and hearing the advocates for the parties, the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 27-06-2006 stayed operation of letter dated 11-06-2006 issued by the Commission.

4. Shri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao argued that the learned Single Judge gravely erred by suspending operation of direction given by the Commission ignoring the fact that the latter has the power under Section 201 of the Act read with Rule 97 of the Rules to issue direction for free and fair conduct of election.

Learned counsel further argued that the direction given by the Commission requiring the candidates to submit names of the polling agents at least one day before the date of actual polling cannot be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the Act or the Rules because there is no contrary provision therein. Shri Nuty Ram Mohan Rao pointed out that, vide circular NO.329/SEC-B1/2006 dated 24-04-2006, the Commission had directed the candidates to submit names of the polling agents at least three days before the date of election, but after consulting the representatives of the political parties, time was reduced to three days (sic. one day). Learned counsel emphasized that the object underlying the direction given by the Commission is to ensure that unscrupulous and anti-social elements are not able to enter the polling booths as agents of the candidates and jeopardize free and fair election.

5. Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 laid considerable emphasis on the language of Sub-Rules (1), (2), (3) and (5) of Rule 19 of the Rules and argued that in the absence of any statutory enumeration of time, direction given by the Commission to the candidates to furnish the names of polling agents one day before the date of actual election is liable to be declared as ultra vires to the rules. Sri Srinivas submitted that if the name of polling agent is disclosed one day before the date of actual polling, there is every likelihood of his being kidnapped and subjected to physical harm by the opponents and, therefore, the candidates should have freedom to furnish the name of their polling agents on the date of actual election. He further argued that in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 19, the polling agent is required to submit the instrument of appointment before the Presiding Officer before being admitted in the polling booth and, therefore, there is no justification to compel the candidates to furnish the names of the polling agents one day before the election.

6. We have thoughtfully considered the respective arguments. For appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel in a correct perspective, it will be useful to