- (1.) THE main grievance of the petitioner appears to be is that although his nomination was accepted for the general scat and he contested the election and thereafter, votes were counted, but before declaration of the result the election was countermanded by the State Election Commissioner.
(2.) SRI R. C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State Election Commission submitted that the seat for which the nomination of the petitioner was accepted was a reserved seat and the petitioner could have not filed his nomination for that seat, as he belonged to forward caste and for that reason the election was countermanded. The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and conduct of all elections of the panchayat is vested only in the State Election Commission, consisting of State Election Commissioner as provided under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. Similarly superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice President held under this Constitution is vested in the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) A bare perusal of both the Articles would indicate that the language and tenor of both the Articles are identical. The Election Commissioner under the scheme of the Constitution is vested with vast power in all the matters pertaining to conduct of the election. His decision cannot be assailed, if he has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or any law framed by the Legislature. If he transgress his authority against the law, enacted by Legislature or act in colourable exercise of power the Court may interfere. In no other case his decision can be called in question. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, 1978s. C. page 851, while dealing with the power of the Chief Election Commissioner Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Election Commission is competent in any appropriate case to order re-poll of the entire constituency where necessary. It will be an exercise of power within the ambit of function, under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. It was vehemently argued by Sri B. N. Shriswal, an eminent lawyer of this court, that the Constituency from which the petitioner contested was declared as a general seat, but said order was not circulated. The argument of Shriswal is that revolve around the proposition that if the authorities have acted illegally and they perpetuated certain illegalities and irregularities, even then the State Election Commissioner was found to declare the result and should not have countermanded the election. The argument is misconceived, for the reason that when the Constitution has vested wide power to the State Election Commissioner he could countermand the election and order for re-poll situation. Any challenge against the order passed by the State Election Commissioner this order by means of present writ petition cannot be sustained. In that regard the Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, laid down the following proposition in para 112 of the report which is reproduced as under. "112. The important question that arises for consideration is as to the amplitude of powers and the width of the functions which the Election Commission may exercise under Article 324 of the Constitution. According to Mr. Rao, appearing on behalf of the appellants, there is no question of exercising any powers under Article 324 of the Constitution which in terms refers to 'functions' under sub-article (G ). We are however unable to accept this submission since functions include powers as well as duties (see Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, P. 1196 ). It is incomprehensible that a person or body can discharge any functions without exercising powers. Powers and duties are integrated with function. ";