SAYED AHMED Vs. BRIJENDRA NATH PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition was a losing candidate of Indian National Congress in the elections for the M. P. Legislative Assembly from 63 Satna Assembly Constituency, the result of which was declared on 29th January 1994. The respondent was declared elected in this election. Election to M. P. State Legislative Assembly had been notified by the Governor on 23rd Oct. 1993 vide Notification No. 15-93-IV (Elec.) 696 dated 23-10-93 issued u/s. 15 (2) of Representation of the People Act 1951. Pursuant to this the Election Commission issued notification No. 964/MP/LA/93 (1) dated 23-10-93 u/s. 30 of that Act. Nominations were invited between 23rd October to 30th Oct. 93. Scrutiny of the nomination papers was fixed for 1-11-1993 and withdrawal date was upto 3rd November 1993. Polling had been fixed for 23rd Nov. 1993. However, the election of this constituency was postponed by the Election Commissioner vide Notification No. 464/MP/LA/93 dated 21-11-93 received by the District Returning Officer, District, Satna. The election was held on 24th January 1994 and the respondent was declared as the winning candidate by a margin of about 1500 votes. The petitioner felt aggrieved by this result and filed the present election petition on two counts :

(2.) Thus, the only ground which now survives in this petition is on the plea that the postponement of the election was illegal, unauthorised, against the principles of natural justice and so without jurisdiction and further that it has affected the result of the election unduly in favour of the respondent. The petitioner claims that the election of the respondent be set aside on the ground laid down in Section 100 (1)(d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which is in the following terms :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Article 324 of the Constitution of India does not give an unbriddled power to the Election Commissioner in regard to holding of election and for the purpose of postponement of election, the Chief Election Commissioner should exercise power in the same situations in which a Returning Officer may exercise his powers to postpone the election under Section 57 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is as follows :-