B. L Yadav, J. - (1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the prayer is that a writ of Mandamus may be issued commanding the respondents 1, 2 and 3 (i.e. Distt. Magistrate Allahabad, B. D. O. Meja, Assistant Returning Officer) not to hold fresh elections of Gaon Sabha Gedurahi, Block and Tehsil Meja, Distt. Allahabad scheduled for 10-8-1988 in view of the order dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure 3) and to issue a writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 8-8-1988 (Annexure 3), cancelling the election of the Gaon Sabha Gedurahi and directing fresh poll in pursuance of the powers under Rule 21-G (3) of U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules (for short the Rules) framed under Section 110 of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act 1947 (for short the Act).
(2.) THE factual matrix are that the polling for the election of Pradhan etc. of the Gaon Sabha Gedurahi was held on 5-8-1988 and the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were the only two candidates for the office of Pradhan. Counting was held on 6-8-1988, where it was discovered that certain ballot papers were found in excess than the number of ballot papers shown in the account submitted by the Presiding Officer. THE petitioner's counting agent raised an objection about it (Annexure 1) and prayed that counting may be stopped. Another application (Annexure 2) was also filed. On these applications enquiry was made and counting was stopped and on 8-8-1988 by the impugned order (Annaxure 3) in exercise of powers conferred in view of Rule 21-G of the Rules poll was cancelled and a fresh poll was ordered in respect of a number of Gaon Sabhas including one in respect of which present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no power to stop the poll and to order fresh poll nor there was any justification for passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand urged that the Distt. Magistrate was exercising the powers under the supervision and control of Nirvachan Nideshak (Panchayat) under Section 12-B C of the Act and Rule 16-A, the impugned order was passed under Rule 21-G, which was justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. No ground for interference under Article 226 was made out. In any case the petitioner shall have an alternative remedy of filing election petition. Having heard learned counsel for the parties first point that falls for our determination is as to whether the District Magistrate has statutory power ? Suffice it to say that Section 12-B C of the Act provides that subject to the supervision and control of Nirvachan Nideshak (Panchayat), the District Magistrate has power to supervise the conduct of all elections Rule 21-G of the rules deals with emergency provisions and contemplates unforseen events which could not be expected at the commencement of polls nor in respect of which some arrangements could have been made from before. Rule 21-G is couched in such a language that it confers powers on Matdan Adhyaksha, Nirvachan Adhikari and District Magistrate. Rule 21-G (I) provides that in case polling is interrupted or obstructed by any riot or violence or some other sufficient cause the first power is with the Matdan Adhyaksha who shall announce adjournment of poll, he shall also inform Nirvachan Adhikari who shall report the matter to the District Magistrate immediately. The District Magistrate has been given the power to decide as to whether the poll that has been held has to be cancelled or not. In view of the provisions of Rule 21-G (II) and great responsibility has been thrust upon the District Magistrate to decide the matter immediately. Thereafter the Distt. Magistrate would decide for the cancellation of the poll already held and for holding fresh poll.
(3.) IN the instant case by the impugned order fresh poll was directed. All this has to be done by the District Magistrate as specified under the Roles. Thereafter fresh poll has to be conducted by Matdan Adhyaksh. After fresh poll has been held, all provisions pertaining to secrecy of the ballot papers, opening of ballot boxes and counting of ballot papers have to take place as provided under the Rules. IN the present case we are satisfied that the impugned order has correctly been passed by the District Magistrate, which could not be said to suffer from any error much less apparent the face of the record. There is another aspect of the matter that the election process is just like cyclic order. In other words it is a single complete movement in a mechanical process. Once it has started revolving it must be completed. By the judicial discretion and mandate this cyclic order must not be interfered with unless it is completed. It is completed by counting of ballot papers and declaratian of result. In the present case same has not been done so far, as on account of certain circumstances beyond the control, which could not be foreseen, the poll that was held has to be cancelled and fresh poll has been ordered. We are of the opinion that the scope of Article 226 is not to be extended so as to interfere at intermediate stage after commencement of the election process before declaration of the result so that the person declared successful may hold the office of Pradhan. The party aggrieved after the counting of the ballot papers can question validity of the election so held by the election petition in view of Section 12-C read with relevant Rules, under Chapter 1 F of the Rules including Rule 24 etc. (See S. T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, AIR 1988 SC 616.;