The Election Commission does not have the power to countermand an election and order re-election due to the alleged wrongful rejection of nomination papers by the Returning Officer. The decision of the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting nomination papers is final and can only be challenged through an election petition.

( 1 ) THESE appeals are filed by the State Election Commission constituted under Art. 243-K of the Constitution and S. 42 of the M. P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1994 (for short the Act) against the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. Nos. 2102/94, 2100/94 and 2101/94 filed by the respective first respondents in these appeals.

( 2 ) THE cases arise in regard to the election for the post of one Sarpanch in each of three Panchayats, Utiyakalan, Ahmadpur and Maheshwar respectively. We will refer to the facts in L. P. A. No. 142/ 94 which relates to a seat reserved for ladies. Three ladies, namely, first respondent Pramilabai, fifth respondent Manoramabai and one Shakunbai, filed nominations. On the day of scrutiny of nominations namely, 3-5-1994, the nominations of Manoramabai and Shakunbai were rejected by the Returning Officer, thereby leaving only one candidate with a valid nomination. Rejection of nomination papers was effected because of alleged ufiauthorised over-writing in the nomination papers in regard to serial number and the ward number in the voters lists of the candidate and'the proposer. 5-5-1994 was the last date fixed for withdrawal of candidature and 7-6-1994 was the date fixed for polling. After the expiry of the last day for withdrawal, Returning Officer shall prepare and publish in the prescribed forms a list of contesting candidates whose nominations have been finally accepted and who have not withdrawn their candidature within the period prescribed, and list of contesting candidates shall be affixed on the notice board of the office of the Returning, Officer and copies supplied to the contesting candidates. If for any seat there remains only one candidate whose nomination is found valid, Returning Officer shall forthwith declare the candidate duly elected to-fill the seat and inform the Commission through District Election Officer. That could have been done only after the time prescribed for the withdrawal of nominations on 5-5-1994. A voter complained to the District Returning Officer regarding the rejection of nomination papers and the letter reported to the Secretary to the Commission. The Commission on 20-5-1994 took a decision to countermand the election and to order re-election on the ,ground that nomination paper had been tampered with by an election Officer. The writ petition was filed on 28-5-1994 seeking to quash the order and seeking a direction for declaration of results of the election.

( 3 ) IN the two other cases also, all but one of the nominations filed for each of the sets were rejected for a similar reason and the Election Commission took a similar decison. Writ petitions were filed seeking similar reliefs as in W. P. No. 2100 of 1994.

( 4 ) THE writ petitioners contended before the learned single Judge that the decision of Returning Officer being final, the Election Commission could not have interferred with the remaining process of election which consisted of declaration of the results, that once election process commenced no authority can impede the same, that the impugned decisions were in violation of principles of natural jsutice inasmuch as the sole candidate whose nomination paper was accepted was not given an opportunity and the Commission had no jurisdiction to countermand election and order re-election which could be secured only by filing an election petition. The Election Commission rebutted these submissions and asserted that the general power of superintendence or control vested in it, included also the power to countermand election and order fresh election, such an act done during the process of election cannot be challenged in Court as sought to be done by the petitioners. It is also contended that since one of the election officers himself was responsible for the tampering of nomination papers, it was neessary that the Election Commission should interfere. ( 5 ) LEARNED single Judge on review of the provisions of the Constitution and t