D. P. Wadhwa, J. ( 1 ) THESE are three different writ petitions. The petitioners question the legality and validity of order of the respondents askingthem to report for election duty in Punjab and to act as Presiding Officers ofthe polling stations. Writ Petition No. 507/92 has been filed by the Delhistate Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Union and certain employees. The Corporation is a Company, though a government company under thecompanies Act, 1956. Writ Petition No. 579/92 has been filed by Northernrailway Promotee Officers Association, and Writ Petition No. 616/92 by theemployees of the Delhi Development Authority, a body corporate constitutedunder the Delhi Development Act enjoined to perform various functions underthat Act. ( 2 ) POLLING date for general elections in the State of Punjab is 19/02/1992. To understand the rival contentions we will refer to the factsin C. W. No. 507/92 as only in this writ petition answers to show-cause noticeshave been filed by the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi, and the Election Commission of India. The petitioners there have been told that they have beendeployed as Presiding Officers for the forthcoming elections to the Statelegislature and Parliament to be held in Punjab and their services have beenplaced at the disposal of the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi. This was by letterdated 22/01/1992. Earlier on 24/01/1992 the Chief Electoralofficer wrote letter to various Secretaries/head of the Departments of thedelhi Administration, Commissioner, M. C. D. Delhi, Administrator. N. D. M. C. ,new Delhi, Vice-Chairman, D. D. A. , New Delhi, and Chairman/managingdirectors of all autonomous bodies statina "we are required by the Government of India, Ministry of Horns Affairs, to depute 1300 Presiding Officers forelection duty for Punjab". The letter mentions incentives to be given to the sltaffso deputed for election work in Punjab and that the officers selected as Presiding Officers were expected to report for duty at the earmarked destinationsten ays before the poll. All these Heads of the Departments are informed thatgiven the sensitive and important nature of assignment it was imperative thatall officials selected for duty were relieved and report for duty as per the prescribed schedule without fail and that no excuse for not reporting for dutywould be entertained. There there is a letter dated 27 Jan. 1992 by the Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi, to the Chairman, Delhi State Civilsupplies Corporation Limited. There there is a letter dated 27 Jan. 1992 by the Secretary (Services), Delhi Administration, Delhi, to the Chairman, Delhi State Civilsupplies Corporation Limited. He said he was enclosing a list of officialsfrom the Corporation who had been selected for appointment as Presidingofficers and that the officials selected as reserves had been shown separately inthe list and their services were placed at the disposal of the Chief Electoralofficer with immediate effect and that they might be asked to await furtherdirections in this regard from the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi. Then followedthe letter dated 29/01/1992 from the Manager (Administration) of thecorporation addressed to all the officers for their having been deployed aspresiding Officers. The petitioners have contended that their selection had been arbitraryand that no criteria had been mentioned as to how they only had been selected. They say that the situation in Punjab is so bad that there is threat to their livesand they complain breach of their fundamental rights as guaranteed underarticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. They futher say their deployment isnot in accordance with the Constitution as per the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short rp Act, 1951 ). Yet another contention is that they are the employees of a Company and not of any localauthority and that under Section 159 of the RP Act, 1951 every, local authority in a State shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointedunder Clause (4) of Article 324, or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State,make available to any Returning Officer such staff as may be necessary for theperformance of any duties in connection with an election. This submissionis available only to the petitioners in C. W. 507/92, but in the case of the writfiled by the officers of the Delhi Development Authority the contention wouldbe that local authorities situated within that particular State can be asked tomake available their staff and that too on a request received from the Regionalcommissioner of that State. Petitioners have also filed certain excerpts fromnewspapers to contend that Government employees in the State of Punjab andother neighbouring States are not willing to perform election duties and thereis insecurity in Punjab and threats to the. lives and liberty of the people thereare ever present. Petitioners, therefore, say their lives and liberty hadbeen put at stake and that too without following the procedure established bylaw. lives and liberty of the people thereare ever present. Petitioners, therefore, say their lives and liberty hadbeen put at stake and that too without following the procedure established bylaw. ( 3 ) IN answer to show-cause notice, in the affidavit filed by Mrs. Pratibha Karan, Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi Administration, Delhi, she saysthat the Government of Punjab through the Government of India soughtassistance of the neighbouring States for providing Presiding Officers forsmooth conduct of polls and that "in pursuance of the decision of the Government of India to which the Election Commissioner was also a party" it wasproposed to place services of 1300 employees of the Delhi Administrationincluding those of local authorities to work as Presiding Officers during theforthcoming elections in Punjab. She says these officials would be called uponto perform duties only in pursuance of a valid and legal order issued by theprescribed election authority under Section 26 of the RP Act, 1951 and thatsuch officials would function as Presiding Officers in compliance with theorders issued under Section 26 of that Act. She further says that the officialswill, thus, be deemed on deputation to the Election Commission for the periodthey would be on election duty. Mrs. Karan then draws to our attention tosections 159 and 134 of the RP Act, 1951. Section 159 has alreadybeen referred to above and under Section 134 breach of election duty is anoffence. ( 4 ) THE affidavit of the Election Commission of India has been filedby its Secretary Mr. S. K. Mendiratta. He has raised three preliminary objections and has sought to have the petitions dismissed in limine, but with afurther rider that the Election Commission reserves his right to file a detailedcounter-affidavit in the event of the writ petitions not being dismissed in limineon the preliminary objections mentioned in the affidavit. These preliminaryobjections are : (1) The writ petition is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and since the electionprocess has started this Court will not have jurisdiction to interfere with thesame under Article 226 of the Constitution. Any direction in terms of theprayers of the petitioners is bound to effect the arrangements being made fortaking the poll on 19/02/1992 and will, thus, amount to interference withthe electoral process currently on. Reliance has been placed on certain decisionsof the Supreme Court. Any direction in terms of theprayers of the petitioners is bound to effect the arrangements being made fortaking the poll on 19/02/1992 and will, thus, amount to interference withthe electoral process currently on. Reliance has been placed on certain decisionsof the Supreme Court. (2) Section 170 of the RP Act, 1951 also bars the jurisdiction of this Court as it provides that no civil Court shall have jurisdiction toquestion the legality of any action taken or of any decision given by thereturning Officer or by any other person appointed under that Act in connection with an election. The Presiding Officers and Polling Officers areappointed for taking poll at polling stations by the District Election Officerundersection 26 of the RP Act, 1951 and that, therefore, the legality of theappointment made by the District Election Officer cannot be questioned inview of Section 170 of that Act. (3) The petitioners are having anerroneousbelief that there is no power under the Constitution or the enacted laws toappoint them for the election duties in the State of Punjab. Reference has beenmade to clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution, and also to Section 26 ofthe RP Act 1951. Finally, it is stated that under the law it is not necessarythat a person to be appointed as a Presiding Officer or a Polling Officer shouldbe a Government servant or an employee of a local authority. Reference hasbeen made to a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of employeesof the Life Insurance Corporation of India wherein the High Court held thatthe employees of that Corporation were not covered under Section 159 of therp Act 1951 as the Corporation was not a local authority. The Supremecourt in Special Leave Petition stayed the operation of the interim ordersmade by the Rajasthan High Court. The Special Leave Petition is still pending but it is statedthat the stay of the interim orders of the Rajasthan High Court in similarcircumstances still holds the filed and this Court under Article 141 of theconstitution is bound by the orders of the Supreme Court. ( 5 ) DURING the course of proceedings we have been referred to variousjudgments of the Supreme Court where the Court has clearly laid the law thatthe High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere where the election process has started. ( 5 ) DURING the course of proceedings we have been referred to variousjudgments of the Supreme Court where the Court has clearly laid the law thatthe High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere where the election process has started. But innone of those judgments the questions which have been raised before us werethere. Two contentions of the petitioners have been that under clause (6) ofarticle 324 of the Constitution there is no request by the Election Commissionto the President of India to make available to him or to the Regional Commissioner, Punjab, such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of functionsconferred on the Election Commission by clause (1) of Article 324, and,secondly, that it is for the District Election Officer under Section 26 of therp Act, 1951 to appoint a Presiding Officer for each polling station and thereis no such appointment of any Presiding Officers for the petitioners to functionas Presiding Officers of any particular polling station, and rather petitionerssay they have been asked to report to the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi, whowould have no jurisdiction in the matter. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit filed by the Election Commission except for preliminary objections mentioned therein nothing has been said if there was anyrequest by the Election Commission. Mr K. T. S. Tulsi, learned Additionalsolicitor General, did say that the request could even be on the telephone. Thatperhaps may not be a correct statement to make. In the normal governmentworking even any such request on telephone would have been recorded insome note somewhere. In these proceedings under Article 226 we certainlycannot go into the question if free and fair election can or cannot be held inpunjab. That is not within our domain. The petitioners, however, say thatthe conditions are not normal in Punjab due to various reports in the press andthe way they have been offered incentives- to do election duty in Punjab. Asnoted above, their contention also is that there are no guidelines as to why only they have been selected and not others. In the writ petition (CW 576/92) it has been contended that only Group B officers have been selected andnot the officials of the other groups. Asnoted above, their contention also is that there are no guidelines as to why only they have been selected and not others. In the writ petition (CW 576/92) it has been contended that only Group B officers have been selected andnot the officials of the other groups. When the petitioners complain ofinfringement of their fundamental rights as granted by Articles 14 and 21 ofthe Constitution, they certainly expect to know that constitutional functionaries have acted in accordance with the Constitution and the law. ( 7 ) ONE other question which needs determination is if the staff of agovernment company can be deputed for any election duty, i. e. if governmentcompany is a local authority and can be asked to perform duties in connectionwith an election. The case before the Supreme Court pertained to the Lifeinsurance Corporation of India which was constituted as a Corporation underan Act of Parliament. The interim stay granted by the Supreme Court cannotbe said to be a law laid under Article 141 of the Constitution. But then following that order it can at best said that the D. D. A. is a local authority and itsstaff may fall within Section 159 of R. P. Act, 1951, but certainly not thestaff of a government company. A local authority has been defined under,section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act to mean a municipal committeedistrict board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitledto, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of amunicipal or local fund. This definition takes the government company outof the category of the local authority and, thus, outside Section 159 of therp Act, 1951. ( 8 ) EVEN assuming that District. Election Officer in Punjab has apower to appoint any person outside that State to act as Presiding Officer of apolling station, but that power has to be exercised by the District Electionofficer as envisaged under Section 26 of the R. P. Act, 1951, and not by thechief Election Officer, Delhi. It cannot be disputed that any person can beappointed by the District Election Officer to act as Presiding Officer. ( 9 ) A question was then raised by the respondents that any ordermade by us would result in staying of the election process which has beenstarted and that would go against the law laid by the Supreme Court. Thiscontention does not appear to us to be quite correct. ( 9 ) A question was then raised by the respondents that any ordermade by us would result in staying of the election process which has beenstarted and that would go against the law laid by the Supreme Court. Thiscontention does not appear to us to be quite correct. The contention has beenraised with reference to Article 329 (b) where an election can be called intoquestion only by an election petition, and also to Section 170 of the RP Act,1951 which bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court. In various judgments of thesupreme Court which have been cited before us at the Bar it will be seen therethat an elector or a candidate could ultimately question the election, and assuch could not file a petition in the High Court staying the election process. Here it is the staff of a government company, a local authority, and a Government department which are questioning the constitutional validity and thelegality of the action of the respondents for deploying them to election duty. They certainly cannot file an election petition because under Section 81 of therp Act, 1951 election petition can be filed only by a candidate at such electionor any elector. A candidate and elector have been defined under the Act. Then what right the petitioners would have after the elections are over. Wouldnot that be making their petitions infructuous ? ( 10 ) AT the conclusion of the arguments today Mr. K. T. S. Tulsi,learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing both for the Union of Indiaand the Election Commission, filed an affidavit before us sworn by Mr. D. S. Bagga, Deputy Election Commissioner, stating th at request was in effect madeby the Election Commission to the President of India as envisaged in Clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution. However, Mr. Bagga says that hewould claim privilege against disclosure of the contents of various records onthe basis of which request was made by the Election Commission to the Unionof India for making arrangement to deploy polling staff from outside the Stateof Punjab. It is stated that privilege is claimed on the ground that the saidrecord of communications and meetings contain information, the disclosure ofwhich is detrimental to the maintenance of law and order and public order inthe State of Punjab, as also in the neighbouring States. Mr. It is stated that privilege is claimed on the ground that the saidrecord of communications and meetings contain information, the disclosure ofwhich is detrimental to the maintenance of law and order and public order inthe State of Punjab, as also in the neighbouring States. Mr. Bagga further statesthat from lime to time after the announcement of elections to the State Legislative Assembly in Punjab, requests were made to the Union of India throughthe Union Home Minister and Union Home Secretary to deploy polling stafffor election duty in the State of Punjab from amongst employees who do notreside in that State. He further says that in the course of several meetings heldto take follow up action on the request of the Commission and the Government of Punjab, he himself was present and has followed up progress withregard to deployment of polling staff from outside the State of Punjab. It isfurther stated that records have been brought to Court for its perusal andinspection for substantiating the aforesaid averments but that it was not inpublic interest to disclose the contents thereof the petitioners and privilegewas, thus, sought to be claimed. A copy of this affidavit was handed over tolearned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh said that if it is to bedeciphered from the various records that a request as required under Clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution was in fact made he has a right to examinethe records and also to contest the right of the Election Commission to claimprivilege. ( 11 ) WE are of the opinion that substantial questions do arise in these petitions for consideration by this Court. We heard arguments in some detailand would have proceeded to hear the matter further and to dispose of thewrit petitions at this stage itself but for the fact that the Election Commissionwants to file further affidavit. We are not satisfied with the preliminary objections raised by the Election Commission. Accordingly, we will issue Ruled. B. We are quite aware of the fact that the matter needs immediate disposaland as a matter of fact we had even suggested to learned Counsel for therespondents that if it was not possible to file counter-affidavit relevant recordsbe brought to the Court and today we are told by the Election Commissionthat he is claiming privilege. B. We are quite aware of the fact that the matter needs immediate disposaland as a matter of fact we had even suggested to learned Counsel for therespondents that if it was not possible to file counter-affidavit relevant recordsbe brought to the Court and today we are told by the Election Commissionthat he is claiming privilege. We will, therefore, set down the matter immediately for hearing as from tomorrow and in the circumstances there will be stayof the impugned orders. 17-02-1992cwp No. 706/92:this writ petition has been filed by employees of National Institute ofpublic Co-operation and Child Development, respondent No. 4, asociety registered under the Societies Registration Act. CWP No. 708/92:this writ petition has been filed by the Association of certainemployees and some of the employees of the New Delhi Municipalcommittee constituted under the Punjab Municipal Act as extended todelhi. CWP No. 709/92:this writ petition is by the three employees of the Delhi Tourism andtransportation. Development Corporation, a Government company,respondent No. 4. CWP No. 710/92:this writ petition is by the association of the employees of the fourthrespondent, nemely, Central Social Welfare Board, a Section 25company under the Companies Act, 1956, like any Governmentcompany. CWP No. 711/92 :this writ petition is by seven employees of the fourth respondent,namely, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, constituted under the Delhimunicipal Corporation Act. CWP No. 712/92:this writ petition is by the Officers Association of Collectorate ofcustoms and Central Excise, Delhi Collectorate, New Delhi. CWP 719/92:this writ petition is by an employee of Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation Limited, a Government company under the Delhiadministration. CWP No. 722/92:this writ petition is by fourteen employees of the Delhi Development Authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act,1957. CWP No. 723/92 ; This writ petition is by the 25 employees of the Delhi Developmentauthority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. CWP No. 724/92 :this writ petition is by the Income-tax Gazetted Officer Associationserving in Ne. w Delhi area and from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. CWP No. 699/92:in this petition which is also filed by 64 employees of the Delhidevelopment Authority rule nisi had already been issued for todayand interim orders granted in terms of order dated 13/02/1992in C. W. P. 507/92. w Delhi area and from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi. CWP No. 699/92:in this petition which is also filed by 64 employees of the Delhidevelopment Authority rule nisi had already been issued for todayand interim orders granted in terms of order dated 13/02/1992in C. W. P. 507/92. CWP No. 700/92:this petition is by the thirteen employees of the Delhi Administration,in this rule nisi was issued for this date and interim orders grantedin terms of order dated 13/02/1992 in C. W. P. 507/92. CWP No. 616/92:this petition is by nine employees of the Delhi Development Authority. In this case we had already passed interim order on 13/02/1992 and this petition was connected with Civil Writ Petition507/92. CWP No. 507/92:this is the main writ petition in which we are passing interim orders. Interim order dated 13/02/1992 was made in this petition. Thishas been filed by the employees Union of Delhi State Civil Suppliescorporation Limited a Government company of Delhi Administration and five of its employees. In this case today an application seeking amendment of the writ petition has been filed copy of which hasearlier been given to the learned Counsel for the respondents todayitself. CWP No. 576/92:this petition filed by an Association of Northern Railway Promotteeofficers Association was heard along with C. W. P. 507/92 whereininterim order was made on 13/02/1992. An application seekingamendment of the writ petition has been filed copy of which has beenserved upon the Counsel for the respondents today itself. CWP No. 507/92: ( 12 ) IN three writ petitions, namely, C. W. Ps. 507/92, 576/92 and616/92, we passed interim orders on 13/02/1992. Interim orders weremade after taking only prima facie view of the matter. This order is in constinuation of that after further hearing in the matter. Thereafter, various writpetitions have been filed in some of which we again issued show. cause noticesas to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable this day. Some of the writ petitions came up for admission today itself. Copies of all the writ petitions havealready been served on the respective Counsel for the respondents. Details ofthese writ petitions have been mentioned in the title above. cause noticesas to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable this day. Some of the writ petitions came up for admission today itself. Copies of all the writ petitions havealready been served on the respective Counsel for the respondents. Details ofthese writ petitions have been mentioned in the title above. ( 13 ) THERE are various types of cases before us where employees havechallenged either the orders of the Chief Electoral Officer, Delhi, requiringthem to report for election duty in Punjab or by the District Election Officer invarious districts in Punjab asking individual employees to report for dutythere in terms of Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. THE categorisation may be made as under :-1. Employees of the Government departments like Income-tax,central Excise and Customs, and Railways. 2. Employees of Government companies registered under thecompanies Act. 3. Employees of Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act though under the control of the Government. ( 14 ) WE have further considered the matter. In the earlier order wehad given an interim finding that it could not be disputed that any personcould be appointed by the District Election Officer to act as Presiding Officer. We have been taken through variovs provisions under the R. P. Act, 1950, andr. P. Act, 1951 as well as to the relevant provisions of the Constitution particuularly Article 324 (6 ). We may also note that in some of the writ petitions inin which we had issued notices, applications have been filed seeking amendment of the writ petition and to challenge the orders of the District Electionofficers which came about after the making of the interim order. We are alsoconscious of the fact that general elections in the Punjab are going to be heldday after. In the three writ petitions mentioned in the beginning of the orderwe have issued Rule. D. B. as we noted that substantial questions of law wereinvolved. These writ petitions are still pending. In the affidavits filed by theelection Commission which have been noted in our earlier order it had beenstated that request was in fact made by the Election Commission to thepresident of India for making available such staff as may be necessary fordischarge of functions conferred upon the Election Commission under Clause (1) of Article 324 of the Constitution. Privilege had been claimed from disclosingthe documents which show that such a request had been made. Privilege had been claimed from disclosingthe documents which show that such a request had been made. This will begone into at the time of hearing of the writ petitions. Since Mr. D. S. Bagga,deputy Election Commissioner, has filed an affidavit on oath to this effect,there is nothing on record for us not to accept his version that a request underclause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution was made. That being so, wecannot find any fault at this stage in the orders of the District Election Officersrequiring Government staff to perform the duties as Presiding Officers. ( 15 ) THE case is, however, different in case of employees of authoritieslike the Delhi Development Authority, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, andnew Delhi Munnicipal Committee, though all local authorities but not withinthe State of Punjab. Undersection 159 of the R. P. Act, 1951, which alsowe had noticed in our earlier interim order, every local authority in a Stateshall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under Clause (4) of Article 324, or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available toany Returning Officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance ofany duties in connection with an election. Assuming that a local authoritymay be outside that particular State, the request has to come from theregional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State concerned. There is no such request and nothing has been said about it by the respondents. A society under the Societies Registration Act, or a Government companyunder the Companies Act, 1956, is certiainly not a local authority undersection 159 of the R. P. Act, 1951. To us it appears, again prima facie, thatthough the District Election Officer can appoint a Presiding Officer for eachpolling station, that has necessarily to be from the Government staff detailedon duty in terms of Article 324 (6) of the Constitution. Proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 26 deals with appointment of a Polling Officer by the Presidingofficer. We have been referred to Sections 27 and 28a of the R. P. Act 1951,and it does appear to us that a Presiding Officer necessarily has to be fromthe staff of the Government and if he is from outside the State then staffcould be made available on a request made by the Election Commission underclause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution. Otherwise, any otherinterpretation would made the provision of Clause (6) of Article 324nugatory. Since after the passing of interim order dated 13/02/1992 orders have been received from the respective District Electionofficers, that interim order has necessarily to be modified to some extent. Wewill, therefore, direct that in the writ petitions where the employees belong tothe Delhi Development Authority Municipal, Corporation of Delhi, New Delhimunicipal Committee, Government companies and societies registeredrespectively under the Companies Act and the Societies Registration Act (thedetails of which writ petitions are mentioned in the title of this order), ordersissued by the District Election Officers will not be implemented by the respondents. In the new writ petitions listed before us today we issue notice to showcause in all these matters as to why rule-nisi be not issued, returnable on24-02-1992.