The central legal point established in the judgment is the lack of power for the Election Commission to set aside an election and the emphasis on aggrieved candidates seeking legal remedy in accordance with the law.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioners seek a writ of certiorari quashing the publication of the election programme for holding the election for the post of Kshetra Panchayat published in the newspaper dated 22. 7. 2000.

( 2 ) THE facts, in brief, are that the programme of elections for Kshetra Panchayat (BDC) was notified to be held in the month of June, 2000 as per the following programme : last date for filing of 1/2. 6. 2000 1 nomination papers. Scrutiny and disposal of 4/5. 6. 2000 2 objection to the. nomination papers. Last date for with 6. 6. 2000 3 drawal of nominations. Publication of final list of 6. 6. 2000 4 the contesting candidates after withdrawal. The petitioners and certain other persons submitted nomination papers, the details of which have been mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this writ petition. It appears that the Assistant returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of certain other candidates and the petitioners were declared as elected from their respective wards as unopposed. The petitioners have annexed as Annexures- 1 and 2 to the writ petition the proforma duly signed by the Assistant Returning officer declaring the petitioners as elected unopposed.

( 3 ) IT appears that subsequently the persons, whose nominations were rejected, submitted objections before the Returning Officer. The matter was referred to the District Magistrate. The district Magistrate reported the matter to the Election Commission on 25. 6. 2000. The Election commission passed the order dated 26. 6. 2000 holding that by playing fraud and by wrongful means, the nomination papers have been rejected or accepted at the Instance of influential persons and directed that the fresh election should be held. In pursuance of the instructions issued by the Election Commission, the fresh notice has been published in the Daily Newspaper aaj dated 22. 7. 2000 inviting nomination papers from the candidates on the date mentioned in the said newspaper. The petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in holding fresh election by filing the instant petition.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after the petitioners were declared and elected as unopposed, the Returning Officer, District Election Officer or the State Election commission has no jurisdiction to direct for holding the fresh election and if there was any mistake committed by the Assistant Returning Officer in rejecting the nomination papers, the aggrieved candidates can seek appropriate legal remedy. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Smt. Ram Kanti v. District Magistrate and others, 1995 AWC 1465, wherein, in the similar circumstances, it was held that after the declaration of the result, the Election Commission has no jurisdiction to hold fresh election.

( 5 ) SRI B. D. Mandhyan. learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that if any fraud has been practised, in that circumstances, the Election Commission is entitled to enquire and pass an appropriate orders for holding the fresh election. It is stated that a fresh election should take place as fraud was pactlsed in getting the nomination papers of other persons rejected. There is no averment in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners had committed any fraud. Secondly, it is the Assistant Returning Officer who had rejected the nomination papers. If for any reason he had rejected the nomination papers, it was open to such candidate to agitate before the appropriate forum for setting aside the election.

( 6 ) THE election was held under Uttar Pradesh Kshetra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats (Election of Members) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the Rules ). Rule 15 provides notice of election and fixing of dates for holding the election. Rule 16 relates to presentation of nomination papers. Rule 18 provides for scrutiny of nomination papers and Rule 19 for withdrawal