Hon’ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2005 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2, the State Election Commission, countermanding the election of the Member of the Zila Panchayat.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that a notification was issued by respondent No. 2 for holding elections of Members of the Zila Panchayat on 23.9.2005 under the provisions of U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the ‘Adhiniyam 1961). The petitioner contested the election for the said post and the voting took place peacefully on 23.10.2005 without any interruption or hindrance. The votes polled on 23.10.2005 were to be counted on 25.10.2005. However, the respondent No. 2, in exercise of the powers under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India and Section 260-B of the Adhiniyam 1961, countermanded the election by the impugned order on the ground that one candidate namely Shri Jitendra Yadav had adopted corrupt means while canvassing for votes and he was found holding a public meeting in a temple, i.e., prohibited area after expiry of the period for canvassing, which was in violation of the code of conduct for elections.

3. Shri Manish Goel, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no provision for countermanding the election under the Adhiniyam 1961 nor such a power has been conferred upon the State Election Commission by Article 243-K of the Constitution; the order is without jurisdiction and hence nullity; at the most, in case the said candidate Shri Jitendra Yadav was found to have adopted corrupt means while canvassing for his candidature, it could have been a ground for setting aside the election after declaration of the result. More so, countermanding may be permissible in exceptional circumstances on the date of election but such power cannot be exercised at the time of counting of votes. He, therefore, submitted that the order impugned is liable to be quashed.

4. Shri C.K. Rai, learned Standing Counsel and Shri P.N. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission and other respondents have vehemently opposed the writ petition contending that as the result of the election has not been declared, this Court has no power to interfere with the election process; the order impugned cannot be examined in exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court; the State Election Commission can exercise such a power as it has all residuary powers to conduct free and fair election and, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. This Court, while entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 2.2.2006 directed the Returning Officer to keep the ballot boxes in a sealed cover in safe custody and it is pointed out that in spite of the fact that there was no interim order by this Court restraining the Commission to hold the election afresh, no attempt has been made by the Commission to conclude the election by issuing a direction for fresh polls in the entire constituency.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The law of election is too technical; equity, justice etc. have no role in such matters. The Election Commission is competent, in appropriate case, to pass an appropriate order to meet a particular situation in exercise of its power under the Statute on receiving the reports from the Returning Officer etc., with regard to any situation arising in the course of election and the powers have to be exercised with promptitude. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :

“Election in this context, has a wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminate in the final declaration of the returned candidate. (Emphasis added)

8. A similar view