ORDER : - Sri Triloki Singh was a candidate for election to Lok Sabha from the Lucknow District Central Constituency. The two other candidates were Srimati Sheorajvati Nehru and Sri Atal Behari Bajpai. All the processes of the election took place up to 27-2-1955. Thereafter the counting of votes commenced from 1-3-1955. This petition was filed on 2-3-1955 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for certain directions to be issued and for a declaration to be made that the counting of votes on 1-3-1955 was invalid and inoperative in law.

The direction that was asked for was to the effect that the Returning Officer should be prohibited from following the result of, what is called, his "illegal procedure" in counting votes and should not prepare and certify the return in form No.XVI and should not cause it to be published in the Gazette. An interim order for the sealing of necessary papers was also prayed for but that order was not issued and must now be left out of consideration.

2. The question that first of all is to be considered, on a preliminary objection being raised on behalf of the Returning Officer, is whether this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ in this matter which relates to an election, even supposing all the allegations made in the application to be correct, though this is not accepted by the Returning Officer.

The question of law which has, therefore, arisen is whether I can exercise the powers of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and issue a writ either of certiorari or of mandamus in respect of the action of the Returning Officer.

3. The matter is governed by authorities. The first decision is a decision of a Bench of this Court of which I was a member. In that decision it has been laid down that Art.329, Cl. (b) of the Constitution prevents an interference by the High Court by the issue of a writ in all matters relating to an election.

It was further held that the word "election" as used in that Article is wide enough to cover every part of the process of selection of a representative. It was, therefore, held that this Court could not issue a writ in the matter of the proper or improper rejection of a nomination paper.

4. It is true that in that case the question was as to the rejection of a nomination paper which occurred at a very early stage in the election. Nevertheless, it was necessary for the purpose of deciding that case to determine the meaning of the word election" as used in Art.329, Cl. (b) of the Constitution. The decision, therefore, was a decision on the point which had really arisen in this case.

5. The next case, to which reference may be made, is the decision of the Supreme Court reported in - Punnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, AIR 1952 SC 64 (A). In that case also their Lordships (per Fazl Ali J.) have laid down the law in the following words:

"As we have seen, the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word "election" in Article 329, Clause (b). That word has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll.

In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. In - Srinivasalu v. Kuppuswami, AIR 1928 Mad 253 (B), the learned Judges of the Madras High Court after examining the question expressed the opinion that the term "election" may be taken to embrace the whole procedure whereby "elected member" is returned, whether or not it be found necessary to take a poll.

With this view my brother Mahajan, J. expressed his agreement in - Sat Narain v. Hanuman Parshad, AIR 1946 Lah 85 (C), and I also find myself in agreement with it. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document