Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
B.P.Singh and S.B.Sinha JJ.
State Bank Of India Staff Association
Versus
Election Commission Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7815 of 1991 ;
Decided On : MAY 21, 1993
absence of any other provision Bank employees can not be asked to perform election duty-AIR 1978 SC 851 ref. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 12. 14 & 15)
(Per S. B. Sinha, J.) -the matter relating to requisition of the services of any person has been laid down both under the Constitution as also under 1951 Act-the entire field of requisitioning the services of persons stands covered which can not be supplemented by issuing executive instruction. (Paraa 40, 52, 54 & 56)
General Clauses Act, 1897, Sec 3(31) - Local authority - having regard to the definition of the said provision and authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in several decisions it Is not possible to hold that State Bank of India is a Local authority-It is futile to contend that State Bonk of India being a Local authority the services of its employees can be requisitioned for election work u/s 159 of the Act of 1951-AIR 1963 SC 1890, AIR 1981 SC 951 & AIR 1968 SC 1239 ref. (Paras 7 & 8)
(Per S. B. Sinha, J.)-the word Local authority occurring in secs 26(1) and 159 of the Act
must be given the same meaning as occurring in sec 3(31) (Para 55)
Interpretation of Statutes - it is a well accepted principle of Interpretation that where two views are possible, that view must be preferred which does not expose the law to the risk of being declared invalid- he presumption is in favour of Constitutionality of legislation, and by Interpretation such a legislation should not rendered Invalid, if It is resaonably possible to Interpret It in a manner which supports the presumption of validity. (Para 12) (Per S.B. Sinha, J.) - although headings of sections may not be used for purpose of Interpretation of a revision language whereof is clear and ambiguous but the same may have to be taken into consideration where two interpretations are possible.- a statute is presumed to be constitutional - in order to save the constitutionality of the statute in a given situation it may have to be read down-but invalid statute can not be made valid by resorting to the rules of reading down - 1969(3) All EL Reports 1640 & AIR 1971 SC 101 ref. (Paras 26 & 35)
Representation or Peoples Act, 1951, secs 13A, 21, 22, 26(1), 159 - the State Bank of India is not a Local authority within the meaning of sec 159 - lt is a statutory corporation having a distinct legal entity but that by itself does not give it the attributes and characteristics of a local authority - in absenee of a valid requisition by the competent authority the District Election Officer could not appoint any employee of the State Bank of India as Presiding/Polling Officer - a conjoint reading of secs 21, 22 & 26 must lead to necessary Inference that the officers to he appointed under Part IV of the Act of.1951 must he officers whose services can be requisitioned by the Election Commission or by the Regional Commissioner - sec 26 only vests in the District Election Officer the power to appoint Presiding Officer and Polling Officer but persons so appointed must be persons whose services can be requisitioned under Art 324(6) - sec 26 was not intended to given a wide application so as to be wider in its scope than Art 324(6) and sec 159 of the Act of 1951 - the power to appoint Presiding and Pulling Officer must apply to such employees of the Govt. or Local authority whose services have been requisitioned under aforesaid provisions-District Election Officer can not requisition the services of the employees of the State Bank of India - AIR 1971 Cal 461 dist. AIR 1978 SC 851 ref. (Paras 7, 8, 10, 11. 12 & 16)
(Per S. B. Sinha, J.) - there is no escape from conclusion that the District Election Officer can only appoint a person as Presiding Officer or as a Polling Officer whose services have been requisitioned either by the Election Commission or by the Regional Commissioner - if any other meaning is given the same would lead to an anamolous situation which may render sec 26 Constitutionally vulnerable - contexual interpretation of sec 26 therefore leads to one conclusion that the District Election Officer can not requisition services of any person whether he is in private service or carrying on business. profession or otherwise in absence of power to requisition the services of any employee of the statutory corporation or public sector undertakings etc must be held to be corpus omissis which cannot be supplied by court - AIR 1978 SC 851, 1900 1 AEL Reports 1, P. 6. 1993(1) PLJR 617, (1987)4 SCC 137, AIR 1971 Cal 461 & 1993(1) PLJR 352 - ref. (Paras 36, 41, 42, 44, 52, 56 & 57)
B.P.Singh, J.
1. The petitioners herein are the State Bank of lndia Staff Association, local Head Office Unit, State Bank of lndia Officers Association, Local Head Office and three employees of the State Bank of India working in its Local Head Office at Patna. They had originally challenged the requisition made by the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, dated 22nd September, 1991 (Annexure-1) calling upon the Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India to furnish the list of employees of the State Bank of India with full particulars for the purpose of deputing such employees on election duty. They had also challenged the letters dated 30th October, 1991 and 1-11-1991 (Annexure-2 series) issued by the District Election Officer appointing and deputing some of the employees of the State appointing and deputing some of the employees of the State Bank of India on election duty in connection with the elections to the Barb Parliamentary and Pali Assembly Constituencies schedule to be held on 16-11-1991. The writ application was admitted for hearing on 11-11-1991, but no interim order was passed having regard to the fact.that the election was to be held on 16th November, 1991, and this Court did not wish to dislocate the arrangements made for holding the election. However, this Court Observed in the interim order that it will be open to the respondents to reconsider the matter and to make alternative arrangement, if so advised. The respondents were directed to file their counter-affidavit within three weeks, and it was directed that the writ application be placed for final disposal on 16th December, 1991. No counter-affidavit has been filed, and for whatever reasons, the writ application could not be disposed of on 16th .December, 1991.
2. Thereafter, the District Election Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, issued similar letters of appointment which were communicated to the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India appointing several employees of the State Bank of India as Presiding Officers and Polling Officers in connection with the Parliamentary election to be held on 19th May, 1993 from the 35 Patna Parliamentary Constituency. The petitioners filed an application for amendment of the writ application, and have challenged the letters of appointment issued by the District Election Officer, which have been annexed as Annexure-4 series, Such letters were communicated to the persons so appointed by the Assistant General Manager of the State Bank of India requesting them to attend the training programme for election duty as per the details given in the letters of appointment. The letters of appointment are said to have been issued under Sub-section (1) of Sec. 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951). The application came up for orders on 6th May, 1993. The respondents were granted time to file objections by Friday, 7th May, 1993. It was further directed that the writ application be placed for hearing at the top of the Hat on 10th May, 1993, having regard to the fact that the ejection was to be held on 19-5-1993. No objection to the amendment application has been filed and, accordingly, the amendment application was allowed and the parties were heard at length on 10th May, 1993 and llth May, 1993. Since no formal orders has been recorded allowing the application for amendment of the writ application, we hereby formally allow the amendment application.
3. The petitioner have challenged the legality and validity of the letters of appointment (Annexure-4 series) on the ground that neither any constitutional provision, nor any law, authorises the District Election Officer to requisition the services of the employees of the Bank to perform election duty in connection with the Parliamentary election. On the other hand, the respondents contend that the constitutional provisions as well as the laws enacted by the Parliament fully authorise the District Election Officer to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
