JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The Petitioner filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the judgment and order of the Election Tribunal dated 15-11-54, refusing to declare the election void, refusing also to declare the election of Opp. Party No. 1 void and refusing to declare the Petitioner as being entitled to be declared as a returned candidate. 2. The Petitioner and Opp. Parties 1 and 2 were candidates for election from Kesnagar constituency of the Orissa State Legislative Assembly in the last election. The Petitioner polled 11,500 votes and Opp. Party No. 1 polled 13,800 votes and Opp. Party No. 2 polled 2,829 votes. The Petitioner filed an election petition on the ground that Opp. Party. No. 1 committed several major and minor corrupt practices as well as certain illegal practices in the said election. The Petitioner also challenged the election on the ground that several Government Officers not only proposed and seconded the candidature of Opp. Paty No. 1 in the election, but also they gave their active support to Opp. Party No. 1. He also alleged that the Opp. Party No. 1 took recourse to undue influence and many electors were threatened and were compelled to vote in favour of Opp. Party No. 1. It was also alleged by the Petitioner that Opp. Party No. 1 did not maintain the election account and that he made false election return in material particulars, the details of which were given. 3. The election petition was first heard by the Election Tribunal, Cuttack, consisting of Sri N.C. Ganguli, Sri Ramesh Chandra Mitra and Sri K.D. Chatterji and though the Tribunal heard the case at length and evidence on all the issues was taken, yet the Tribunal gave a finding only on one issue which was that the Opp. Party No. 1 was proposed and seconded by a Govt. servant, and coming to a conclusion that proposing and seconding by a Govt. servant are not legal, the Election Tribunal set aside the election of opposite party No. 1. 4. On appeal by Opp. Party No. 1 to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the said order and observed in its judgment that in Case the finding as to when the Opp. servant are not legal, the Election Tribunal set aside the election of opposite party No. 1. 4. On appeal by Opp. Party No. 1 to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the said order and observed in its judgment that in Case the finding as to when the Opp. Party became a candidate would have been given, different consideration would have arisen. The Supreme Court set, aside the order of the Election Tribunal and sent back the case to the Election Commission of India to get the case reheard by the same Tribunal. The Supreme Court also gave a direction that as is incumbent in law contained in Section 99 of the Peoples Representation Act, the Tribunal should give a finding on each and every corrupt practice, minor and major, and the illegal practice alleged in the petition and as to whether such practice had or had not been committed. It was also held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that though a Govt. servant Can propose or second a candidate, the assistance Can only go so far as such assistance amounts to a right to vote and laid down that in case a candidate secured the assistance of a Govt. servant in any other way than to vote, the same would amount to a corrupt practice. 5. The Election Commission, however, did not refer the case to the same Tribunal as per the directions of the Supreme Court, but the election petition was referred to a different Tribunal consisting of Sri J.K. Misra, Sri K.D. Chatterji and Sri K.D. Sahai. The newly constituted Tribunal heard the arguments in the matter on the evidence already recorded by the previous Tribunal as both the parties consented to that course, and by its judgment dated 15-11-54 the Election Tribunal dismissed the application of the Petitioner as already stated above. 6. The Petitioner raised various contentions against the order of the Election Tribunal. He contended that the order of the Election Tribunal should be quashed as the Tribunal itself was not constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. 6. The Petitioner raised various contentions against the order of the Election Tribunal. He contended that the order of the Election Tribunal should be quashed as the Tribunal itself was not constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court. He also contended that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to Law, on the face of it, in as much as on many important contentions, raised by the Petitioner, the Election Tribunal, after discussion of the evidence decided these points' against the Petitioner on the ground that the benefit of doubt should De given to the Opp. Party. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also contended that even according to the observations of the Tribunal in their judgment the opposite party No. 1 was guilty of major and minor corrupt practices and that the Tribunal as wrong in coming to the conclusion, that the minor corrupt practices proved had not materially affected the election. He also contended that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence adduced by the Petitioner, which conclusively proved the Opp. party made a false return of election expenses. 7. The first contention of the Petitioner is that the Election Tribunal was not properly constituted in as much as though the Supreme Court directed that the matter should be enquired into by the same Tribunal, the Election Commission appointed a new Tribunal contrary to the directions of the Supreme Court ad consequently the order made by such a Tribunal was void. 8. In paragraph 15 of the judgment their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: We set aside the order of the Tribunal and remit the case to the Election Commission with directions to it to reconstitute the Tribunal which tried this case and to direct the Tribunal to give its findings on all the issues raised and to make a fresh order. In paragraph 17, their Lordships observed: We wish to record our disapproval of the way in which this Tribunal shirked its work and tried to take a short cut. It is essential that these Tribunals should do their work in full. They are 'ad hoc' bodies to which remands cannot easily be made as in ordinary courts of law. 9. In paragraph 17, their Lordships observed: We wish to record our disapproval of the way in which this Tribunal shirked its work and tried to take a short cut. It is essential that these Tribunals should do their work in full. They are 'ad hoc' bodies to which remands cannot easily be made as in ordinary courts of law. 9. Reading these two' observations together there is no doubt in our mind that the Supreme Court directed that the matter should be reheard by the same Tribunal and the Election Commission was directed to reconstitute the same Tribunal. 10. The present Tribunal which was constituted to rehear the matter consisted of Sri J.K. Misra, Sri K.D. Chatterji and Sri K.D. Sahai. Sri N.C. Ganguli and Sri R.C. Mitra who were members of the first Tribunal were not in the second Tribunal. Sri. K. Misra and Sri K.D. Sahai were new members in the Tribunal which disposed of the case after remand. Consequently, the Tribunal which disposed of the case after remand is not the same Tribunal which tried the case in the first instance. The Election Commission accordingly has not reconstituted the Tribunal to hear the Case as directed by the Supreme Court. 11. Mr. S. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1 contended that it was not possible to reconstitute the same Tribunal, and that the Election Commission obtained orders from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to constitute another Tribunal and consequently the constitution of the present Tribunal was valid. In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty filed before us only a copy of a letter dated 19-11-54, addressed to the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 239 of 1953 (which is the appeal preferred by opposite party No. 1 in which the order of remand was made), and a copy of the letter of the Registrar of the Supreme Court dated the 18th March, 1954. He did not file even atleast the copy (certified) order of his Lordship the Chief Justice. 12. He did not file even atleast the copy (certified) order of his Lordship the Chief Justice. 12. The letter of the Election Commission written by the Assistant Secretary is as follows: x x x x The Hon'ble Court remitted the case to the Election Commission to reconstitute the Tribunal which tried the case No. 5/52 and directed the said Tribunal so reconstituted to give its findings on all the issues raised in the case and make a fresh order in the said Case.' The Election Tribunal which tried the said election case No. 5/52 was composed of Sri N.C. Ganguli, District Judge, Cuttack, as Chairman, and Sri R.C. Mitra, a retired District Judge, Cuttack and Sri K.D. Chatterji, Advocate, Patna as the others members. Sri R.C. Mitra has informed the Commission that he is now unable to accept the membership of the Tribunal as he is ill. Sri K.D. Chatterji has informed the Commission that he can accept the appointment if the hearing starts after April, 1955. "The petition relate to the last general election and the Commission is very anxious to have the same disposed of as early as possible. I am, therefore, to request you in the circumstances to move their Lordships to permit the Election Commission to constitute a flew Tribunal for the trial of the said election case. The Chairman Sri N.C. Ganguli will be included in the new Tribunal if he continues to be available." The letter of Registrar of the Supreme Court is as follows: In continuation of this Court's letter No. 1146/54- SCC dated the 26-2-54, I write to inform you that your letter No. 19/147/52- Elec. III/3637 dated the 19.2.54 has been placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for orders. His Lordship has directed that the Election Commission, India, may in the circumstances stated in their communication to this Court referred to above, constitute a new Tribunal to rehear election case No. 5/52 and to give its findings on all the issues raised therein and to make a fresh order in the said Election case. His Lordship has further directed that the parties to the said Election case can agree to accept the evidence already tendered on the previous occasion. Para 2 of this Court's order dated 4.2-54 may please be treated as modified to the extent indicated above. 13. His Lordship has further directed that the parties to the said Election case can agree to accept the evidence already tendered on the previous occasion. Para 2 of this Court's order dated 4.2-54 may please be treated as modified to the extent indicated above. 13. After receipt of this letter from the Registrar of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India notified on the 16th of June, 1954, as follows: Whereas the election of Sri R.K. Bose, as member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of Orissa from the Kesnagar constituency was called in question by an election petition presented by Sri B. Kanungo of village Malipur P.O. Kesnagar, Cuttack. And whereas the Election Tribunal appointed by the Election Commission for the trial of the said petition declared the election of the Respdt. No. 1 in the said petition void by an order dated 5-9-53, and thereafter ceased to exist. And whereas the Supreme Court of India on appeal of the said Respdt. No. 1 has set aside the said order of the Election Tribunal and has remitted the case to the Election Commission with directions to constitute a new Tribunal to give its findings on all the Issues raised and to make a fresh order. Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 86 and 88 of the R.P. Act, 1951 (XLIII of 1-951), the Election Commission hereby appoint Sri J.K. Misra, District Judge, Cuttack-Dhenkanal, to be the Chairman of the Tribunal for the trial of the said petition and further appoints Cuttack as the place where the trial of the petition shall be held. 14. 14. From these three extracts it is clear that the Election Commission was conscious that according to the order of the Supreme Court in the appeal before it, the same Tribunal consisting of Sri N.C. Ganguli, Sri K.D. Chatterji and Sri R.C. Mitra must be constituted to dispose of the matter after remand and consequently they sent a letter to the Registrar of the Supreme Court praying to move their Lordships to permit the Election to constitute a new Tribunal for the trial of the said election case, and in compliance with this request, the Election Commission was informed by a letter dated the 18th March, 1954, that his Lordship the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court directed, in the circumstances stated in their communication to that court, to constitute a new Tribunal to rehear the election case No. 5/52 and to give its findings on all the issues raised therein and to make a fresh order. It is now for consideration whether the order of the Court in appeal before them filed by opposite party No. 1, can be modified by an order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or whether it was necessary that the said modification ought to have been made by the same Bench of the Supreme Court which heard the appeal and directed remand ordering that the matter should be disposed of by reconstituting the Tribunal which heard the case. 15. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the order of the Supreme Court in the appeal cannot be modified by an order of the Chief Justice. He also contended that though the letter of the Election Commission to the Supreme Court indicated that the Chairman Sri N.C. Ganguli will be included in the new Tribunal if he continues to b available, yet Sri N.C. Ganguli was not included in the new Tribunal and no reasons were placed before this Court as to why he was not so included. Mr. Mohanty replied by saying that the constitution of the new Tribunal is valid as it was done in accordance with the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 16. Mr. Mohanty replied by saying that the constitution of the new Tribunal is valid as it was done in accordance with the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 16. We asked the parties to obtain and place before us any rules of the Supreme Court which show that the Chief Justice Can make an order, as is before us, when it was a direction of the Bench that the matter should be disposed of by reconstituting the same Tribunal and authentic copy of the order, The parties took several adjournments, but no help was furnished to us by them, 17. Mr. Mohanty filed before us a copy of a letter party no, 1 by his Advocate and Agency in the Supreme to the following effect: I had gone to the Supreme Court to obtain the clarification of the situation and I showed the letter dated 18.3-54, No. D. 6900/SCC to the Registrar, Supreme Court According to him-and he is right-the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 239 of 19053, and reported in AIR 1954, S.C. 202, has not been at all amended and the judgment stands. According to me, the judgment stands and is binding, What the Hon'ble the Chief Justice seems to have concern is with the execution of the said judgment. The case has been remanded to the Election Tribunal, but under the law it is not necessary that the Election Tribunal must be the same Tribunal. The present Election Tribunal that has been formed is a successor court of the previous Tribunal and whatever orders it has passed in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court are valid. As the judgment is not amended in any way, but only the operative part of it has been clarified, there was no question of any review petition being filed. This is my interpretation as regards this judgment and I am supported in this interpretation by the definition of the word 'Court' in the CPC and elsewhere and also under the General Clauses Act. If, in spite of this, your opponent raises the objection as he has already raised that the Tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction, it is he who has to seek the remedy and not we. The second Tribunal is validly formed and exercise the jurisdiction properly and validly. If, in spite of this, your opponent raises the objection as he has already raised that the Tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction, it is he who has to seek the remedy and not we. The second Tribunal is validly formed and exercise the jurisdiction properly and validly. From this letter, it is clear that there is no amendment of the judgment of the Supreme Court in as far as the directions were concerned, and that the addressed to opposite Court. That letter is constitution of the new Tribunal was based entirely on the order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. In the absence of any authority, we are of opinion that an order of the Bench of the Supreme Court cannot be amended by an order of the Chief Justice. In our opinion, it is necessary that the order of the Bench directing the reconstitution of the same Tribunal should have been got amended by the Bench itself, under the circumstances noted in the letter of the Election Commission to the Supreme Court. The Election Commission itself, when it came to know that the same Tribunal could not be reconstituted, ought to have moved regularly the Supreme Court for a review of amendment of the order and obtained an order to that effect, and then constituted a new Tribunal. Under the circumstances present in this case, we are of opinion that the Tribunal was not properly constituted in accordance with the directions of the Supreme Court and consequently the order passed by them is an order passed without jurisdiction and consequently is void and is of no legal effect. 18. We had to seriously consider whether we have to record findings on the other points raised by the parties, in view of our finding on the validity or otherwise of the constitution of the Tribunal, especially in view of the observations of the Supreme Court that the matter should have been disposed of by the Election Tribunal on all the points raised and their remarks that the Election Tribunal shirked its work in not disposing of all points. We came to the conclusion that in this case, under the circumstances present, it would not be proper on our part to record a finding on the other points raised as in view of our finding that the Election Tribunal was not properly constituted, another Tribunal has to be constituted to dispose of the matter and in case we make any observation and arrive at a finding on the other points raised, we would be embarrassing the Election Tribunal to be formed to dispose from recording any finding on the several contentions argued before us by the petition. 19. As we hold that the Tribunal was not properly constituted and the order was passed by such a Tribunal the said order is without jurisdiction and is invalid and inoperative. We accordingly set it aside and quash the same. This application is therefore allowed, with costs, and the order of the Election Tribunal is set aside. Hearing fee Rs. 500/- (five hundred) Mahapatra, J. 20. I agree. 21. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed