Mr. P. N. Nag, J. ( 1 ) THE principal and the preliminary question thatarises for consideration in these writ petitions is whether the High Courthas the jurisdiction to try and entertain the petition under Article 226of the Constitution in view of the blanket ban under Article 329 (b) of theconstitution. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition and other connected writ petitions raise thesame principal question of law above-mentioned and as such can be disposedof by a common judgment. As a matter of fact, in all the writ petitionsthe Election Commission in exercise of the powers under Article 324 ofthe Constitution and Sections 58, 58a,135-A and 153 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act ) has passed anorder dated 21. 5. 1991, which is the subject-matter of challenge in thesewrit petitions, whereby he has countermanded the election. ( 3 ) IN order to determine the question above-mentioned, it will besufficient to narrate brief facts as stated in CW 2044/91- I. K. Gujral v. Election Commission. ( 4 ) IN pursuance of the notification issued on 19. 4. 1991 under Section 14 (2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (hereinafter calledthe Act), called upon all Parliamentary Constituency (except Parliamentaryconstituencies in the State of J and K) to elect members in accordance withthe provisions of the said Act and of the Rules and order made thereunderwhich included, among others, 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency inthe State of Bihar. Simultaneously, the Election Commission issued aprogramme notification as required under Section 30 of the 1951 Act fixingthe time table for the general election, namely, 26. 4. 1991 as the last datefor making nominations, 27. 4. 1991 as the date for scrutiny of nominations29. 4. 1991 as the last date for withdrawal of candidatures, and 20. 5. 1991as the date of poll in the said 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency and31. 5. 1991 as the date before which the election shall be completed. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed his nomination papers as a candidate ofjanata Dal from 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency. The nominationpapers of the petitioner were scrutinised and accepted by the Returningofficer. According to the petitioner, the election to the said Constituencywas held on 20/05/1991 peacefully and out of a total electorate of about13 lakhs, about 50% voters exercised their franchise. However, to uttersurprise of the petitioner, he received an order dated 21. 5. The nominationpapers of the petitioner were scrutinised and accepted by the Returningofficer. According to the petitioner, the election to the said Constituencywas held on 20/05/1991 peacefully and out of a total electorate of about13 lakhs, about 50% voters exercised their franchise. However, to uttersurprise of the petitioner, he received an order dated 21. 5. 1991 wherebythe Election Commission in exercise of the powers under Article 324 ofthe Constitution and Sections 58. 58a, 135a and 153 of the 1951 Act hadcountermand the election of 35-Patna, Bihar (annexure A) on the groundthat the Commission had received information based on the reports of thestate Government, the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, the Returningofficer, the Observers and other relevant sources of information that onthe date of polling, i. e. , 20. 5. 1991 there had been large scale incidents ofelectoral malpractice involving booth capturing by seizure of polling stations,making polling authorities surrender the ballot papers, making forciblepossession of polling stations and prevention of free access to the votersfor the purpose of voting, threatening electors and preventing them fromgoing to the polling station to cast their vote and that consequently thepolls in the aforesaid constituency have not been free or fair. Itmay be appropriate to quote this order of the Election Commission asunder: "election COMMISSION OF INDIAORDERWhereas, the Election Commission in its Notification No. 464/91 (1) dated 19/04/1991, issued under Section 30 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) had (i) fixed the 20/05/1991, as the date on which poll shall betaken in the Parliament Constituency of 35 Patna of Bihar and (ii) specified the 31/05/1991, as the date before whichthe election shall be completed in the above constituency:andwhereas, the Election Commission has received information basedon the reports of the State Government, the Chief Electoralofficer of the State, the Returning Officer, the Observers and otherrelevant sources of information that on the date of polling, i. e. ,20. 5. 5. 1991 there had been large scale incidents of electoral malpracticeinvolving booth capturing by seizure of polling stations, makingpolling authorities surrender the ballot papers, making forciblepossession of polling stations and prevention of free access to thevoters for the purpose of voting, threatening electors and preventingthem from going to the polling station to cast their vote andthat consequently the polls in the aforesaid constituency have notbeen free or fair; andwhereas, the Commission on the basis of the aforesaid information and after taking into consideration all the material circumstances, is satisfied that due to the aforesaid factors the result of theconstituency has been seriously affected;now, therefore, the Commission, in exercise of the powersconferred by Article 324 of the Constitution of India, Sections 58,58a, 135a and 153 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951,and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, hereby countermandthe aforesaid election. The Election Commission also directs that a copy of thisorder shall be forwarded to the Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer, all the contesting candidates, and all others concerned. The Commission also directs that a copy of this order shallbe forwarded to the Returning Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer,all the contesting candidates, and all others concerned. The Commission also directs that the above order may bepublished in the Official Gazette for general information. Sd/- T. N. Seshanchief Election Commissioner of India,new Delhi"dated 21. 5. 91on 22/05/1991, against the communication of the order dated 21/05/1991 passed by the Election Commission, the petitioner represented beforethe Election Commission stating therein that the polling in Patna was peaceful and free. Reports of independent observers testify to this fact. According to his information neither the report of Returning Officer or of theelection observers was available when the Election Commission took thisex-parte decision and, therefore, the petitioner prayed for the revocationof that order dated 21. 5. 1991. The Election Commission, vide Noticedated 29/05/1991, while considering the representations from some ofthe contesting candidates urging the Commission to re-consider and reviewits aforesaid order of 21/05/1991, decided to hear all the contestingcandidates in the matter and the date of hearing was fixed on 3. 6. 1991 at1100 hours in the Commission s Secretariat at New Delhi. The petitionersubmitted written submissions for the review of the order of the Electioncommission dated 21. 5. 1991 countermanding the election on 3. 6. 6. 1991 at1100 hours in the Commission s Secretariat at New Delhi. The petitionersubmitted written submissions for the review of the order of the Electioncommission dated 21. 5. 1991 countermanding the election on 3. 6. 1991,stating therein that the petitioner, the Janata Dal or any of its supportershad no part either directly or indirectly in any irregularity or malpracticeallegedly taken place at any polling station in the said Constituency. Again, on 4. 6. 1991 another set of written submissions was filed by thepetitioner in which the earlier submissions were re-affirmed and reiterated. it was pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that be bad no objection ifthe Election Commission on the basis of the reports of its own independentobservers or its Election authorities may order a re-poll in those pollingstations where the polling process was allegedly vitiated. As mentionedabove, the hearing in the matter was given by the Election Commission on 3/06/1991. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not suppliedthe copies of the reports submitted to the Commission by variousOfficersand in fact was refused copies of the same by the Election Commission. However, the review application of the petitioner was rejected on 12. 6. 1991whereby the original order of countermanding the election held on 20. 5. 1991was upheld. The petitioner has assailed this order of countermanding andrejection of the review application on various groups, inter alia, that theelection Commission has passed the order malafide and without any legaljustification. According to the petitioner, the Election Commission hasno power to countermand the whole election process and start afresh asin Sections 52 of the 1951 Act, which contemplates countermanding ofelection in case of a death of a candidate, a specific provision has beenmade therein to start the election afresh whereas there is no such provisionin Section 58 and 58a (2) (b ). Even if the Election Commission has powerto countermand under Section 58a (2) (b), this power should be exercisedonly in the rarest circumstances and only after all other means to correctingthe mischief have been failed and/or exhausted. The Election to the saidconstituency have been countermanded without any evidence or materialand the impugned orders dated 21/05/1991 and 12/06/1991 and arenot supported by any document or reports of Returning Officer any of thedesignated officers under the said Act. Such orders have been made onthe basis of wild, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations of rival candidatesalleging large-scale incident. The Election to the saidconstituency have been countermanded without any evidence or materialand the impugned orders dated 21/05/1991 and 12/06/1991 and arenot supported by any document or reports of Returning Officer any of thedesignated officers under the said Act. Such orders have been made onthe basis of wild, reckless and unsubstantiated allegations of rival candidatesalleging large-scale incident. The decision has been taken withoutcomplying with the principles of natural justice and hearing the petitioner. Even the hearing granted subsequently was a mere formality as nothingwas disclosed and the review application was summarily disposed of. Inany case the power has been exercised arbitrarily, without any reports fromthe returning officer, which is a condition precedent for passing of theimpugned orders. In case, even if it is found that there has been malpractice in. some polling booths, the polling should have been ordered in thosepolling booths and the situation did not warrant the countermanding ofthe whole election process. Further, the Election Commission has nopower to countermand the election having regard to the provisions ofarticle 324 of the Constitution of India and other provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, as he has to conduct and complete theelections, once the electoral process is started after the issue of notificationby the President under Section 14 (2) of the Act. The petitioner also haschallenged the vires of Section 58 of the 1951 Act on the ground that theprovisions of countermand the election are unconstitutional, arbitrary andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) WHILE challenging the impugned orders of Election Commissionand seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of these orders, the petitionerhas further prayed in the writ petition that respondent No. 1 should bedirected to reconsider the matter and order re-poll only in such pollingstations as are said to have been affected by electoral malpractice as indicated in the reports of the Electoral Officers of the Constituency or thecentral Observers. ( 7 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1-Electioncommission, a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writpetition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been raised in view of thespecific bar to interference by the Court in electoral matters as per Article329 (b) of the Constitution. Further, in view of Section 170 of the 1951 Act,no writ petition could lie under Article 226 of the Constitution challengingthe order of the Election Commission of India. Further, in view of Section 170 of the 1951 Act,no writ petition could lie under Article 226 of the Constitution challengingthe order of the Election Commission of India. The only remedy is by way ofan Election Petition on the original side of the High Court under whosejurisdiction the constituency in question is situated. On merits, respondentno. l-Election Commission has stated that during the campaign period, thatis, after the last date for withdrawal of candidatures and before the date of poll, the Commission had been receiving disturbing reports about the law and order situation in some constituencies in the State of Bihar, which included the said 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency, which was affecting adversely the orderly and peaceful campaigning and was causing apprehensions whether the poll would be free and fair. It was also complained that onthe day of poll, a very large number of complaints were received by thecommission through its widely publicised information and complaint cell andpersonal Section of the Chief Election Commission and other senior officersfrom various parties, candidates and official sources about clashes betweenpolice and criminals, bomb explosions, exchange of fire and booth capturing,snatching of ballot papers, intimidation and causing injuries to polling officerswhich resulted in the disturbances of peaceful polling at a large number ofpolling stations in Patna Parliamentary Constituency. It was also complainedthat truck loads of goondas were moving freely threatening people andcapturing booths one after the other. Various telephonic calls and complaintsfrom numerous people, including one of the candidates-Yaswant Singhsinha-were also received. On the basis of the reports received from thereturning Officer. Chief Electoral Officer and the complaints by variouspersons to the Election Commission, impugned order was passed by theelection Commission countermanding the election of 35-Patna Parliamentaryconstituency, which is fully justified not only on the facts but also wasessential for the purity of electoral process. It has further been stated that theimpugned order, there, is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It is furthlerstated that Sections 52 and 58a of the 1951 Act deal with two entireydifferent contingencies in the electoral process and that is why Parliament inits collective wisdom has used different phraseology and provided for differentconsequencies in the event of happenings taking places mentioned in the saidtwo Sections. Under Section 52 the Returning Officer countermands the poll in the event of death of one of the contesting candidates and, therefore, theold election proceedings continue but an opportunity is given to newcandidates to join election fray. Under Section 52 the Returning Officer countermands the poll in the event of death of one of the contesting candidates and, therefore, theold election proceedings continue but an opportunity is given to newcandidates to join election fray. But in the case of booth capturing takingplace at a large number of polling stations which is likely to affect the resultof election in the constituency, the whole atmosphere gets vitiated and thepurity of election process gets polluted and, therefore, the Parliament in its collective wisdom considered it appropriate that the whole electoral process should be cancelled and accordingly provided in Section 58a for the counter- manding of the election. Again, the Election Commission-respondent No. 1 has submitted that it was satisfied having regard to the reports of the Returningofficer, the Chief Electoral Officer the State Government, the Commission sobservers and other relevant sources of information available to it that thepolling in the constituency on 20. 5. 1991 was wholly vitiated because of boothcapturing at a large number of polling stations which was likely to affect theresult of the election. The Commission, therefore, countermanded the electionmainly under Section 58-A (2) (b) of the 1951 Act. Once an election is countermanded under Section 58a, all proceedings relating to that election shallcommence anew as countermanding of election means cancellation of thewhole election process. The mischief of heinous offence of booth capturingwhich vitiates the whole electoral process, has sought to be remedied andrectified by enacting Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act that the law makersconsidered it appropriate that the whole election process should be nullifiedunder Section 58a (2) (b) in such a situation. Further there is no legalimpediment which stands in the way of the Election Commission of passingthe impugned order countermanding the election exparte. However, thepost-hearing has been given to the petitioner by the Election Commissionand. therefore, there is no question of violation of principles of naturaljustice. Furthermore, the countermanding of election is fully legally justifiedin the facts and circumstances of the case to maintain free and fair purity ofelections. ( 8 ) PROVISIONS of Section 58 (2) (b) for countermanding the election isneither arbitrary nor unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of theconstitution of India. ( 9 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan substantially advanced the same contentions asare raised in the pleadings. Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioners inc. W. 1976/91, endorsed the arguments of Mr. ( 8 ) PROVISIONS of Section 58 (2) (b) for countermanding the election isneither arbitrary nor unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of theconstitution of India. ( 9 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan substantially advanced the same contentions asare raised in the pleadings. Mr. Bansal, learned Counsel for the petitioners inc. W. 1976/91, endorsed the arguments of Mr. Shanti Bhushan except thatsection 58a (2) (b) of the Act, according to him, was not ultra vires to theconstitution but intra virus. ( 10 ) HAVING regard to the scheme and various provisions of the Actand the Rules framed thereunder and also the provisions of the Constitutionthe words countermand the election used in Section 58a (2) (b) should beread as countermand the poll in that constituency and therefore, accordingto him, in the polling station or places where there has been booth capturingand the result of the election on that account is likely to be affected, in thosepolling stations or places only the polling could have been countermandedand not the entire election. According to him, the Election whole election inthe Constituency as under Article 324 of the Constitution it has been givenpowers of superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of theelectoral rolls for and the conduct of. all elections to Parliament and to thelegislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President andvice-President held under this Constitution and as a matter of fact it has totake steps towards the completion of the election proceedings, once theelection process starts. The step taken by the Election Commission by ordering countermanding the elections is not a step towards the progress of theelection proceedings rather on the other hand it hampers the progress of theprocess of election, and, therefore, such an order is ultra vires of the Act andof the Constitution. Therefore, the only interpretation that can he put to thewords "countermand the election" in Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act is thatthey should be read as "countermand the poll". In fact Mr. Bansalvehemently time and again emphasised on this argument. Other Counsel inother writ petitions endorsed the arguments of Mr. Bansal and Mr. Shantibhushan. ( 11 ) SINCE the vires of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 werealso challenged in the writ petition of Mr. Gujral. notice was given to theattorney General. Since Attorney General was representing the Electioncommission, respondent No. 1. Bansalvehemently time and again emphasised on this argument. Other Counsel inother writ petitions endorsed the arguments of Mr. Bansal and Mr. Shantibhushan. ( 11 ) SINCE the vires of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 werealso challenged in the writ petition of Mr. Gujral. notice was given to theattorney General. Since Attorney General was representing the Electioncommission, respondent No. 1. the case on behalf of Union of India wasentrusted to Mr. Madan Lokur, Advocate. No reply, however, has beenfiled on behalf of the Union of India as according to him, there is nothing inthe averment of the petitioner which requires reply. ( 12 ) ATTORNEY General, Mr. 0. Ramaswamy, on behalf ofrespondent No. 1, on the other hand, to begin with, tried to argue the caston merits. But later on, he confined himself to the preliminary objectionthat this Court has no jurisdiction to try this petition as there is ablanket ban under Article 329 of the Constitution. According to him, theword "elections" has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the widesense, that is to say, to connote the entire procedure to be gone through toreturn a candidate to the Legislature. The use of expression "conduct ofelections" in Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and thatmeaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occurin Part XV, including Article 329 (b ). The term "election" may be taken toembrace the whole procedure which consists of several stages and embracesmany steps, whereby an "elected member" is returned, whether or not it befound necessary to take poll. It is not used in a narrow sense. He insisted that this Preliminary Objection should be decided first by this Court andonly thereafter. in case if the preliminary objection raised is ultimatelydecided against respondent No. 1, the matter should be considered on merits. However, on the other hand. Counsel for the petitioners, contended thatthe matter should be decided in its entirety, including merits, and not inthe piece-meal. In fact there was a lot of controversy between Counsel onboth the sides on this question. ( 13 ) IN support of his submission that the preliminary objection shouldbe considered and decided first by this Court, learned Attorney Generalheavily relied upon a judgment reported as Mohinder Singh Gill and Anotherv. The Chief Election Commission, New Delhi and Others, ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ),particularly paragraphs 9. 126 and 127. ( 13 ) IN support of his submission that the preliminary objection shouldbe considered and decided first by this Court, learned Attorney Generalheavily relied upon a judgment reported as Mohinder Singh Gill and Anotherv. The Chief Election Commission, New Delhi and Others, ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ),particularly paragraphs 9. 126 and 127. ( 14 ) IN my view, the submission of the learned Attorney Generalthat the preliminary issue should be considered and decided first is wellfounded and merits consideration. The Supreme Court in Mohinder Singhgill s case has clearly come to the conclusion that the High Court had nojurisdiction to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionand it was not correct for that Court to enter into any controversy, onmerits, either on law or on facts, and to pronounce finally on the same. Furthermore, in view of the Scheme of Part VI of the Act, the Delhi Highcourt could not have embarked upon an enquiry on any part of the meritsof the dispute. Thus, it could not have examined the question whetherthe impugned order was made by the Election Commission in breach forrule of natural justice. That is a matter relating to the merits of the controversy and it is appropriately for the election Court to try and decide itafter recording any evidence that may be led at. the trial. In fact, thesupreme Court has clearly observed that they should have expected thehigh Court to have considered the basic jurisdictional issue first and notthe last as they did and avoided sallying forth into a discussion and decisionon the merits, self-contradicting its own holding that it has no jurisdictioneven to entertain the petition. In view of this authoritative pronouncementof the Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate and proper for this Courtto embark upon the enquiry on the merits of the dispute. At this stagethe proper course for this Court is to decide first the jurisdictional issuewhether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition underarticle 226 of the Constitution in view of the blanket bank in view ofarticle 329 (b) of the Constitution of India. ( 15 ) THE question as to how far the blanket ban under Article 329 (b)of the Constitution of India bars the maintainability of the petition hasbeen the subject-matter of interpretation and discussion in N. P. Ponnuswamiv. The Returning Officer. ( 15 ) THE question as to how far the blanket ban under Article 329 (b)of the Constitution of India bars the maintainability of the petition hasbeen the subject-matter of interpretation and discussion in N. P. Ponnuswamiv. The Returning Officer. Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt,and Others, ( AIR 1952 SC 64 ). This is a land mark case in election laws anddeals with the scope, amplitude, rational and limitation of Article 329 (b)of the Constitution. The ratio of that case has consistently been followedin various subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and still holds thefiled. In that case the rejection of the nomination paper of the petitionerwas challenged in a writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari to quashsuch an order. The High Court had dismissed the petition on the groundthat there is no jurisdiction to interfere with the order by reason of Article329 (b) of the Constitution. In appeal filed before the Supreme Court ofindia, the Supreme Court has interpreted Article 329 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in appeal, upheld the order of the High Court anddismissed the appeal. ( 16 ) THE Supreme Court, in that case, interpreted Article 329 ofthe Constitution. To facilitate the reference this Article is quoted asfollows: "notwithstanding anything in this Constitution- (a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies, madeor purporting to be made under Art. 327 or Art. 328, shallnot be called in question in any Court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the Houseor either House of the Legislature of a State shall be calledin question except by an election petition presented to suchauthority and in such manner as may be provided for by orunder any law made by the appropriate Legislature. " ( 17 ) WHILE interpreting Article 329, the Supreme Court observed andheld: "the most important question for determination is the meaning to be given to the word "election" in Art. 329 (b ). That wordhas by long usage in connection with the process of selection ofproper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired bothawide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is usedto mean the final selection of a candidate which may embracethe result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. That wordhas by long usage in connection with the process of selection ofproper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired bothawide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is usedto mean the final selection of a candidate which may embracethe result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the widesense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminatingin a candidate being declared election. In Srintvasalu v. Kuppaswami. ATR. (5) 1928 Mad. 253 at 255 the learned Judgesof the Madras High Court after examining the question, expressedthe opinion that the term "election" may, be taken to embracethe whole procedure whereby an "elected member" is returned,whether or not it be found necessary to take a poll," ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court has further considered as to what is meantby the words "no election shall be called in question" in the context ofimproper rejection of a nomination paper, when this ground was availableunder Section 100 of the Act. The Supreme Court has laid down asunder : ". . . . . . whether the law of elections in this country contemplates there should be two attacks on matters connected withelection proceedings, one while they are going on by invoking theextraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226of the Constitution (the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts havingbeen expressly excluded), and another after they have been completed by means of an election petition. In my opinion, to affirm sucha position would be contrary to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, which as I shallpoint later, seems to be that any matter which has the effect ofvitiating an election should be brought up only at the appropriatestage in an appropriate manner before a special tribunal and shouldnot be brought up at an intermediate stage before any Court. Itseems to me that under the election law, the only significance whichthe rejection of a nomination paper has consists in the fact thatit can be used as a ground to call the election in question Article329 (b) was apparently enacted to pre scribe the manner in whichand the stage at which this ground, and other grounds which maybe raised under the law to call the election in question, couldbe urged. I think it follows by necessary implication from thelanguage of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged inany other manner, at any other stage and before any other Court. If the grounds on which an election can be called in question couldbe raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, therewill be no meaning in enacting a provision like Art. 329 (b) and insetting up a tribunal. Any other would lead to anomalies, whichthe Constitution could not have contemplated, one of them beinghigh Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal,which is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matteris brought up before it. I think that a brief examination of Part the scheme of XV ofthe Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 willshow that the construction I have suggested is the correct one. Broadly speaking, before an election machinery can be broughtinto operation, there are namely (1) there are three requisites whichrequire to be attended to, namely (1) there should be a set of lawsand rules making provisions with respect to all matters relating to,or in connection with, elections, and it should be decided as to howthese laws and rules are to be made; (2) there should be anexecutive charged with the duty of securing the due conduct ofelections; and (3) there should be a judicial tribunal to deal withdisputes arising out of or in connection with elections. Articles 327 and 328 deal with the first of these requisites. Article 324with the second and Article 329 with the third requisite. Theother two Articles in Part XV, viz. . Articles 325 and 326 deal withtwo matters of principle to which the Constitution framers haveattached much importance. They are : (1) prohibition againstdiscrimination in the preparation of, or eligibility for inclusion onthe electoral rolls, on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or any ofthem; and (2) adult suffrage. Part XV of the Constitution is reallya Code in itself providing the entire ground work for enacting appropriate laws and setting up suitable machinery for the conductof elections. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was passedby Parliament under Art. 327 of the Constitution, makes detailedprovisions in regard to all matters and all stages connected withelections to the various legislatures in this country. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was passedby Parliament under Art. 327 of the Constitution, makes detailedprovisions in regard to all matters and all stages connected withelections to the various legislatures in this country. That Act isdivided into 11 parts, and it is interesting to see the wide varietyof subjects they deal with. Part II deals with "the qualificationsand disqualifications for membership," Part III deals with thenotification of General Elections. Part IV provides for theadministrative machinery for the conduct of elections, and Part Vmakes provisions for the actual conduct of elections and deals withsuch matters as presentation of nomination papers, requirementsof a valid nomination, scrutiny of nominations, etc. , and procedurefor polling and counting of votes. Part VI deals with disputesregarding elections and provides for the manner of presentationof election petitions, the constitution of election tribunals and thetrial of election petitions. Part VII outlines the various corruptand illegal practices which may affect the elections, and electoraloffences. Obviously, the Act is a self-contained enactment so faras elections are concerned, which means that whenever we have toascertain the true position in regard to any matter connected withelections, we have only to look at the Act and the rules madethereunder. The provisions of the Act which are material to thepresent discussion are Sees. 80, 100, 105, 170, and the provisionsof Chap. I I of Part IV dealing with the form of election petitions,their contents and the reliefs which may be sought in them. Section80, which is drafted in almost the same language as Art. 329 (b),provides that "no election shall be called in question except by anelection petition presented in accordance with the provisions ofthis Part. " Section l00, as we have already seen, provides for thegrounds on which an election may be called in question, one ofwhich is the improper rejection of a nomination paper. Section105 says that every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shallbe final and conclusive. " Section 170 provides that "no Civil Courtshall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action takenor of any decision given by the Returning Officer or by any otherperson appointed under this Act in connection with an election. "these are the main provisions regarding election matters beingjudicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is noprovision anywhere to the effect that anything connected withelections can be questioned at an intermediate stage. "these are the main provisions regarding election matters beingjudicially dealt with, and it should be noted that there is noprovision anywhere to the effect that anything connected withelections can be questioned at an intermediate stage. It is now well-recognized that where a right or li ability iscreated by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it,the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. ( 19 ) IT has further been observed that if Part XV of the Constitutionis a Code by itself, i. e. , it creates rights and provides for the re-enforcementby a special tribunal to the exclusion of all Courts including the High Court,there can be no reason for assuming that the Constitution left one smallpart of the election process to be made the subject-matter of contest beforethe High Courts and thereby upset the time-schedule of the elections. Themore reasonable view seems to be that Art. 329 covers all "electoralmatters". Following two conclusions have been summed up by the Supremecourt in that case : " (1) Having regard to the important functions which thelegislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it hasalways been recognized to be a matter of first importance thatelections should be concluded as early as possible according totime-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputesarising out of elections should be postponed till after theelections are over, so that the election proceedings may not beunduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the electionlaw in this country as well as in England is that no significanceshould be attached to anything which does not affect the"elections"; and if any irregularities are committed while it isin progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would havethe effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the personaffected to call it in question, they should be brought up beforea special tribunal by means of an election petition and not bemade the subject of a dispute before any Court while theelection is in progress. " ( 20 ) PONNUSWAMI s case was followed in Mohinder Singh Gill andam. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (AIR1978 SC 851 ). In that case, the polling was held peacefully. " ( 20 ) PONNUSWAMI s case was followed in Mohinder Singh Gill andam. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, (AIR1978 SC 851 ). In that case, the polling was held peacefully. However,when the counting was going on in the hall, it was stated that a mob ofabout 16,000 by over-powering the police attacked the counting hall wherepostal ballot papers were being counted. Police could not control themob being out-numbered. Part of postal ballot papers excepting partlyrejected ballot papers and other election material was destroyed by the mob. Lot of damage to the property was done. The Election Commission onhaving satisfied himself taking into account all the circumstances andrequests that the poll has been vitiated to such an extent, that, it affectsthe results of the elections under Article 324 of the Constitution read withsection 153 of the Act cancelled the poll already taken and extended thetime of completion of election. In that case the Supreme Court againreiterated the law laid down in Ponnuswami s case and having discussed thematter at length concluded : "i (a) Article 329 (b) is a blanket ban on litigative challenges toelectoral steps taken by the Election Commission and itsofficers for carrying forward the process of election to itsculmination in the formal declaration of the result. (b) Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon theelectorate to elect and culminating in the final declarationof the returned candidate. "the plenary bar of Art. 329 (b) rests on two principles ; (1) the per-emptoryurgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process withoutintermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the stepsand stages in between the commencement and the conclusion. (2) Theprovision of a special jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrievedparty at the end of the election excludes other form, the right and remedybeing creatures of statutes and controlled by the Constitution. ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court while endorsing and Following the viewsexpressed in Ponnuswamy's case, further elaborated the scheme, procedureand steps contemplated under the Act for conducting the election and hasheld : "12. A. free and fair election based on universal adult franchiseis the basic; the regulatory procedures vis-a-vis the repositoriesof functions and the distribution of legislative, executive andjudicative roles in the total scheme, directed towards the holdingof free elections are the specifics. A. free and fair election based on universal adult franchiseis the basic; the regulatory procedures vis-a-vis the repositoriesof functions and the distribution of legislative, executive andjudicative roles in the total scheme, directed towards the holdingof free elections are the specifics. Representation of the Peopleact, 1950 (for short, the 1950 Act) and the Representation of thepeople Act, 1951 (for short, the Act), Rules framed thereunder,instructions issued and exercise prescribed, constitute the packageof electoral law governing the parliamentary and assembly electionsin the country. The super-authority is the Election Commission,the kingpin is the returning officer, the minions are the presidingofficers in the polling stations and the electoral engineering isin conformity with the elaborate legislative provisions. 13. The scheme is this. The President of India (under Sec. 14) ignites the general elections across the nation by calling uponthe People, divided into several constituencies and registered inthe electoral rolls, to choose their representatives to the Lok Sabha. The constitutionally appointed authority, the Election Commission,takes over the whole conduct and supervision of the mammothenterprise involving a plethora of details and variety of activities,and starts off with the notification of the time table for the severalstages of the election (Section 30 ). The assembly line operations thenbegin. An administrative machinery and technology to executethese enormous and diverse jobs is fabricated by the Act, creatingofficers, powers and duties, delegation offunctions and locationof polling stations. The precise exercise following upon the calendar for the poll, commencing from presentation of nominationpapers, polling drill and telling of votes, culminating in the declaration and report of results are covered by specific prescriptionsin the Act and the rules. The secrecy of the ballot, the authenticity of the voting paper and its later identifiability with referenceto particular polling stations, have been thoughtfully provided for. Myriad other matters necessary for smooth elections have beentaken care of by several provisions of the Act. " "14. . . OF the plot at Adjournment any polling station in certainemergencies is sanctioned by Section 57 and fresh poll in specifiedvitiating contingencies is authorised by Sec. 58. The rules run intomore particulars. After the votes are cast comes their counting. Since the simple plurality of the votes clinches the verdict, as the critical moment approaches, the situation is apt to hot up, disturbanceserupt and destruction of ballots disrupt. The rules run intomore particulars. After the votes are cast comes their counting. Since the simple plurality of the votes clinches the verdict, as the critical moment approaches, the situation is apt to hot up, disturbanceserupt and destruction of ballots disrupt. If disturbance or destructiondemolishes the prospect of counting the total votes, the numbersecured by each candidate and the ascertainment of the Will of themajority, a re-poll confined to disrupted polling stations is providedfor. Section 64a chalks out the conditions for and course of suchre-poll, spells out the power and repository thereof and provides forkindred matters. " ( 22 ) IT has further been held that any decision sought and renderedwill not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progressof the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Thus. thereare two types of decisions, two types of challenges. The first relates toproceedings which interfere with the progress of the election. The secondaccelerates the completion of the election and acts in furtherance of anelection. ( 23 ) THESE decisions have subsequently been also followed. It issuffice to refer to two decisions : Lakshmi Charm Sen and Others v. A. K. M. Hassan Uzzaman and Others, [ (1985) 4 SCC 689) and Indrajit Barua and Others v. Election Commission of India and Others, 1 (1985) 4 SCC722]. ( 24 ) IN order to determine whether Article 329 (b) is attracted inthis case, it will be necessary to examine, the ambit, scope and powers ofelection Commission under Section 58a (2) (b) and the nature of orderpassed by him. For this purpose it is necessary to refer to Section 58 (2) (b) of the Act as under : "58a. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of electionon the ground of booth capturing- (1) If at any election,- (a) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or at aplace fixed for the poll (hereinafter in this Section referredto as a place) in such a manner that the result of the pollat that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or (b) booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votesin such a manner that the result of the counting at that placecannot be ascertained,the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission. (2) The Election Commission shall, on the receipt of a reportfrom the returning officer under Sub-section (1) and after takingall material circumstances into account, either- (a) declare that the poll at that polling station or place be void,appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at thatpolling station or place and notify the date so appointed andhours so fixed in such manner as it may deem fit; or (b) "if satisfied that in view of the large number of polling stations or places involved in booth capturing the result of theelection is Klikely to be affected, or that booth capturing hadaffected counting of votes in such a manner as to affect theresult of the election, countermand the election that constituency. Explanation In this Section, "booth capturing" shall have the same meaning as in Section 135-A. " ( 25 ) IT is apparent from Section 58a that if booth capturing hastaken place at a polling station or at a placed fixed for the poll or at aplace fur counting of votes in such a manner that the result of the pollat that polling station or place or counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the Election Commission shall, on receipt of a report from thereturning officer and after taking all material circumstances into account,either can declare that the poll at that polling station or place be void andorder for re-poll. However, Section 58a (2) (b) provides for a differentand more serious situation. Election Commission, if satisfied that in viewof the large number of polling stations or places involved in booth capturingthe result of the election is likely to be affected, or that booth capturinghad affected counting of votes in such a manner as to affect the result ofthe election, can countermand the election in that constituency. In thesame Section the Election Commission in different situations has been givenpower to declare the polling at a particular polling station or place voidand to order fresh poll at such polling station or place. However, in casethe Election Commission is satisfied that in view of the large number ofpolling stations or places involved in booth capturing the result of theelection is likely to be affected, or that booth capturing had affected countingof votes in such a manner as to affect the result of the election, he hasbeen given a power to countermand the election of that constituency. Inother words, in case of booth capturing taking place at a large number ofpolling stations or place, which are likely to affect the result of the electionof that constituency, the whole atmosphere gets vitiated and the purityof election process gets polluted and, therefore, the Parliament in its collective wisdom considered it appropriate that the whole electoral processshould be cancelled and, therefore. Section 58a (2) (b) has been enacted andthe power has been given to the Election Commission to countermand the"election". This provision obviously has been enacted with a view tomaintain the purity of the election process and to hold a free and fair election which is the foundation of the democratic system. It may be notedhere that this provision is nothing to modify, nothing to alter, nothing toqualify the language which the statute contains, it must be construed inthe ordinary and natural meaning of the words and sentences, even if absurdity or anomaly be the result of such interpretation. If the words ofthe statute are in themselves precise or unambiguous, no more is necessarythan to expound those words in their natural or ordinary sense; thewords themselves in such a case best declare the intention of the legislature. ( 26 ) IN Ashok Kumar Golu V. Union ofindia and Others , (AIR 1991sc 1792) the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 7 that when the languageof section is clear and unambiguous as does not call for extrinsic aid for itsinterpretation, to put an interpretation with an aid of extrinsic materialwould result in violence of the plain language and, therefore, such an interpretation is not permissible. ( 27 ) IN view of this, I do not find any hesitation to hold that theelection Commission has power to countermand the election under Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act. ( 28 ) AT this stage, it may be high-lighted that the Election Commission after the countermand of the election cannot sleep over the matter buthas to initiate and commence fresh steps with promptitude to complete theelections as laid down in Ponnaswami's case (supra ). It is no doubt truethat the legislature has omitted to specify under Section 59a (2) (b) of the Actas to what steps should be taken by the Election Commission to completethe election after the countermand of the election. It is no doubt truethat the legislature has omitted to specify under Section 59a (2) (b) of the Actas to what steps should be taken by the Election Commission to completethe election after the countermand of the election. It is settled principle oflaw that the omission made by the legislature may be supplied in order togive the legislation an effective meaning and to prevent it from becomingdevoid of effect. Since after the Election Commission has countermandedthe elections, the steps taken to hold elections prior to the stage of countermand shall also stand scrapped as will be discussed hereinafter and the Election Commission has, therefore, been left with no power to order repollsimultaneously and extend time under Section 153 of the Act. In thesecircumstances the Election Commission in order to complete the elections willhave to recommend to the President under Section 14 (2) or Section 15 (2) ofthe Act (as the case may be) for issue of fresh notification for holding elections in such constituencies and the President thereafter will issue notificationunder the aforemontioned provisions, and thereafter the elections to therespective constituencies shall be held in accordance with the law aftercomplying with the requirements of the Act. It may be made clear thatthese new proceedings which the Election Commission will have to initiatefor completing the completion and thereafter declaring the results after thepolls are held, ultimately shall not convert it into new election but shall be apart of the same election as has been held in Ponnuswami's case (supra) thatthe word "election" in the wide sense connotes the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected. Such an interpretation also findssupport from provisions of Section 52 of the Act as well which also providesfor countermand of poll and election as has been discussed later. ( 29 ) THERE is no dispute that the impugned order has been passed bythe Election Commission under Section51a (2) (b) in the interest of free andfair election which the order itself speaks. However, it cannot be said thatthe Election Commission lacked inherent jurisdiction in passing the order ofcountermanding the election. ( 29 ) THERE is no dispute that the impugned order has been passed bythe Election Commission under Section51a (2) (b) in the interest of free andfair election which the order itself speaks. However, it cannot be said thatthe Election Commission lacked inherent jurisdiction in passing the order ofcountermanding the election. It is again beyond doubt that the impugnedorder has been passed by the Election Commission after the poll is completeand before counting and that further their step of countermanding electionhas been taken by the Election Commission after the issue of notificationunder Sec. 14 (2) (b) for holding such elections to call upon the Parliamentaryconstituencies to elect members in accordance with the Act, Rules andorders framed thereunder, i. e. , at the intermediate stage. Therefore, in suchcircumstances, it is undoubtedly a step during the course of election and afterthe electoral process has started add before declaration of the result. ( 30 ) FURTHER next question that arises for consideration is whethersuch a step of countermanding the election by the Election Commission undersection 58a (2 (b) of the Act is a step towards the completion of the electionproceedings and in furtherance of the election, in other words, whether itsub-serves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of theelection. As already discussed above, this provision has been enacted by thelegislation in the interest of free and fair election and for maintaining purityof elections. It is needless to say that the Election Commission has beenassigned to conduct the elections in a fair and free manner, which is thebasis of the democratic system and this step, as the order itself speaks, hasbeen taken by the Election Commission in the interest of purity of electionsand such a step no doubt would amount to a step in furtherance and completion of the elections and not the interference in the electoral process. Thisstep of countermanding of the elections is a part and-a vital part-of theelections in the interest of free and fair elections and, therefore. Article329 (b) undoubtedly halts the judicial interference during this period, asthis clearly lays down that no election can be called in question except by anelection Petition. ( 31 ) THE next question that arises for consideration would be whetherarticle 329 (b) of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability of the writpetition depends upon whether a remedy is available to the writ petitioner. ( 31 ) THE next question that arises for consideration would be whetherarticle 329 (b) of the Constitution is a bar to the maintainability of the writpetition depends upon whether a remedy is available to the writ petitioner. Section 100 (l) (d) is a complete answer and this remedy of election petition,in my view, will be available to the petitioner for challenging the impugnedaction of the Election Commission by way of election petition. Justicekrishna Iyer in para 20 of his judgment in Mohinder Singh's case (supra)has clearly observed that Section 100 (l) (d) of the Act takes care of such asituation, beingbroad enough, as a residual provision, to accommodate, inthe expression non-compliance, every excess, transgression, breach or omission and the span of the ban under Article 329 (b) is measured by the sweepof Section 100 of the Act. Section 100 (l) (d) reads as under : "100. Grounds for declaring election to bevoid.- (1) Subjectto the provisions of Sub-section (2) if the High Court is ofopinion: (a ). . . . . . (b ). . . . . . (c ). . . . . . (d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been material affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or (ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of thereturned candidate by an agent other than his election agentor (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any voteor the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitutionor of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Actthe High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to bevoid. " ( 32 ) THE Election Commission has passed the order under Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act and it is within the scope and ambit of Section 58a (2) (b)If there is any illegality in exercise of power under this Section by theelection Commission or under any provisions of the Act, there is no reasonwhy Section 100 (l) (d) (iv) of the Act should not be attracted as this clauseis broad enough as a residual provision, to accommodate, in the expressionnon-compliance, every excess, transgression, breach or omission and the scanof the ban under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution is measured by the sweepof Section 100 of the Act, as observed by Justice Krishna Iyer. ( 33 ) THE question whether the power has been exercised arbitrarily,without any report of the returning officer and without having taken intoconsideration any material circumstance in view, is in fact an argument aboutthe illegality and mode of exercise of the power. If Election Commission iscompetent and has the inherent jurisdiction to pass the order of countermandeither under the provisions of the Constitution or under any other provisionsof law, any illegality in the exercise of that power is, in truth and substance,amounts non-compliance with the provisions of law, since law, demands ofexercise of power by its repository, as in a faithful trust, in a proper, regular,fair and reasonable manner. ( 34 ) IN the light of what is discussed above, the writ petition is notmaintainable in view of the ban under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution ofindia. ( 35 ) MOST of the arguments advanced by Counsel for the petitioner indifferent writ petitions were common, which I shall deal first. ( 36 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. R. P. Bansal, learned Counsel forthe petitioner in Kiran Pal Singh (Civil Writ No. 1976/91) strenuouslycontended time and again that once the election process started andnotification issued by the President under Section 14 (2) of the Act callingupon the people in several parliamentary constituencies to elect members inaccordance with the provisions of the Act and of the rules and orders madethereunder, it is the duty of the Election Commission to complete theelection. The Election Commission has been given plenary and comprehensive powers and functions of superintendence, direction and control of thepreparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections toparliament and to the Legislature of every State. The Election Commission has been given plenary and comprehensive powers and functions of superintendence, direction and control of thepreparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections toparliament and to the Legislature of every State. After notification isissued under Section 14 (2) of the Act by the President, the Electioncommission takes over the charge to conduct the elections. Undersection 30, the Election Commission issues a notification for fixingthe last date for scrutiny of nominations, the last date for nominations, the date for withdrawal of candidatures, the date or dateson which a poll shall, if necessary, be taken and a date by which theelection shall be completed. Various electoral officers vested with thepowers and functions are appointed by the Election Commission tocarry out the task of conducting of elections and after the withdrawal ofthe candidatures, the list of the validly nominated candidates is preparedwith their addresses and other particulars and thereafter poll is conductedin accordance with the time schedule fixed by the Election Commission. After the poll, votes are counted and the results declared. By countermanding the elections, according to the learned Counsel, the Election Commissionhas revoked and cancelled the whole election process and in fact all stepstaken by him or officers appointed by him for the conduct of the electionsunder Section 30 onwards, including the holding of the poll and has evenscrapped the notification issued by the President under Article 14 (2) ofthe Constitution for which no power has been vested in him either underthe Constitution or under the Act. He has only to conduct and completethe elections and not to scrap or abrogate it. Election can only be setaside, cancelled or declared void by the High Court under Section 100 ofthe Act by way of election petition. Since the Election Commission lacksinherent jurisdiction in countermanding the election, such an order is anullity and deserves to be set aside. ( 37 ) IT was, further, contended that by countermanding the election,new elections necessarily will have to be ordered to return a candidate froma constituency for which President has been left with no power to issuenotification order under Section 14 (2) of the Act having regard to theprovisions, and scheme of the Act as new House of People already standsconstituted and condition precedent for issue of such notification cannot becomplied with. Therefore, new elections are not contemplated nor canthis be ordered. In support of his submission. Therefore, new elections are not contemplated nor canthis be ordered. In support of his submission. Counsel relied upon heavilyon Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) (1978 SC 851), particularly theyrelied upon paras 31 and 32 of that case. In paragraph 31 the Supremecourt has observed that if the regular poll, for some reasons, has failed toreach the goal of choosing by plurality the returned candidate and to achievethis object a fresh poll (not a new election) is needed, it may still be a stepin the election. The deliverance of Dunkirk is part of the strategy ofcounter-attack. Wise or valid, is another matter. It was further observedin paragraph 32 thereof that on the assumption, but leaving the questionof the validity of the direction for repoll open for determination by theelection Tribunal, the Supreme Court held that a writ petition challengingthe cancellation coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a stepin election and is therefore barred by Art. 329 (b ). If no re-poll had beendirected the legal perspective would have been very different. The merecancellation would have then thwarted the course of the election anddifferent considerations would have come into play. We need not chase ahypothetical case. ( 38 ). In order to appreciate these contentions, it is necessary first toknow what the word 'election' connotes and what is its interpretation. Whatis 'election' in the context of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, has been thesubject matter of interpretation by the Supreme Court in various decisionsand the matter is so well settled. At this stage it may be highlighted thatthe word "election" has to be interpreted as provided in Article 329 whileconsidering the question of its blanket ban to the entertainment of the writpetition. At the cost of repetition, again, what is "election", the matter wasconsidered in Ponnuswami's case (supra) and it was held that the word"election" has by long usage in connection with the process of selection ofproper representatives in democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and anarrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selectionof a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there ispolling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there isnot poll In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire processculminating in a candidate being declared elected. In the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selectionof a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there ispolling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there isnot poll In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire processculminating in a candidate being declared elected. The word "election" hasbeen used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, toconnote the entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to thelegislature. The use of the expression "conduct of elections" in Art. 324specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be readconsistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Art. 329 (b ). The term "election" may be taken to embrace the whole procedurewhich consists of several stages and embraces many steps, whereby an"elected member" is returned, whether or not it be found necessary takepoll. It is not used in a narrow sense. This interpretation has been consis-tently followed in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and this lawstill holds the field, as already discussed. ( 39 ) THE action of countermanding of election under Section 58a (2) (b)of the Act has been taken by the Election Commission, as already discussed,in the interest of purity of free and fair elections for which various provisionshave been made in the Constitution and under the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute that this step has been taken at the intermediate stageafter the issue of notification under Section 14 (2) of the Act and before thedeclaration of the result. Such a step undoubtedly is a step towards thecompletion of the election and cannot be considered as a step interfering inthe process of election. It is an integral part of electoral process. Therefore such an action cannot be termed as scrapping and halting the electionprocess completely or the election and in fact such an act of Electioncommission is a part of the election and towardsthe completion of electionand in the interest of purity of free and fair election and has been passedduring the course of election. It is a step towards the completion and therefore, this will be within the ambit and scope of the word "election" as usedin Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. It is a step towards the completion and therefore, this will be within the ambit and scope of the word "election" as usedin Article 329 (b) of the Constitution. ( 40 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is that once theaction of the Election Commission of countermanding is held as a part ofthe election process and come within the ambit and scope of the word"election" under Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, will commencement offresh proceedings for returning a candidate to the legislature amount to afresh election or the same election ? ( 41 ) ONCE the countermanding of election is held to be a part ofthe entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the legislature, and admittedly no candidate has yet been returned to the legislatureand such step has been taken in the purity of elections and to promote afree and fair elections, procedure to be initiated for holding elections toreturn a candidate to a legislature cannot be termed as a "new election". As a matter of fact so long as a candidate to a legislature is not returned,it will continue to be the same election and not a "new election". No doubt,after countermanding of elections by the Election Commission, new stepswill have to be taken to hold the election as if it is a new election, whichwill include issue of notification under Section 14 (2) of the Act by thepresident and the notification by the Election Commission under Section 30etc. There is no legal impediment in the issue of notification undersections 14 (2) and 15 (2) of the Act by the President. The President haspower to issue one or more notifications-general notification for elections tovarious constituencies as well as separate notification for a particularconstituency--as the circumstances warrant. It is settled law that under therepresentation of People Act there is no concept of election to the legislature as a whole but in substance it is an election from each constituency. ( 42 ) IN lndrajit Barua and Others v. Election Commission of India andothers, (1985)4 SCC 722 , the question arose about the validity of theelections to the Assam Legislative Assembly held as a whole on the groundthat the electoral rolls were not revised before the elections in contraventionof the provisions of Section 21, Sub-section (2) (a) of the Representation ofthe People Act. 1950 and the elections were held on the basis of the electoral rolls of 1979. In that context the Supreme Court held : "in the first place, Article 329 (b) of the Constitution barsany challenge to the impugned elections by a writ petition underarticle 226 as also on the ground that the electoral rolls on thebasis of which the impugned elections were held were invalid. The petitioners sought to escape from the ban of Article 329 (b)by contending that they are challenging the impugned elections asa whole and not any individual election and that the ban of Article329 (b) therefore does not stand in the way of the writ petitionsfiled by them ch. . . llenging the impugned elections. But we donot think this escape route is open to the petitioners. There is inthe Representation of the People Act, 1951 no concept of electionsas a whole. What that Act contemplates is election from eachconstituency and it is that election which is liable to be challengedby filing an election petition. It may be that there is a commonground which may vitiate the elections from all the constituencies,but even so it is the election from each constituency which has tobe challenged though the ground of challenge may be identical. Even where in form the challenge is to the elections as a whole,in effect and substance what is challenged is election from eachconstituency and Article 329 (b) must therefore be held to beattracted. " ( 43 ) THE action of Election Commission as such under Sec. 58a (2) (b)of the Act has not only statutory sanction, as already discussed, butalso is in accordance with the notification issued by the President undersections 14 (2) or 15 (2) of the Act. So, in fact by acting under Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act, the Election Commission has complied with thenotification issued by the President under Section 14 (2) and not violatedthe same, as the notification itself speaks of conduct of election under theprovisions of the Act and rules. ( 44 ) THIS above interpretation find full support from Section 52 ofthe Act where in case of death of candidate before poll, countermandingof poll has been contemplated and also the commencement of proceedingswith reference to this election as if it is a new election. ( 44 ) THIS above interpretation find full support from Section 52 ofthe Act where in case of death of candidate before poll, countermandingof poll has been contemplated and also the commencement of proceedingswith reference to this election as if it is a new election. It is settledprinciple of law that when the statute is ambiguous, the intention of thelegislature may be gathered from statutes relating to the same subject-matter,i. e. , statutes in pari materia, on the presumption that whenever thelegislature enacts a provision, it has in its mind the previous statutes relatingto the same subject-matter. Under Section 52 if a candidate whose nomination has been found valid on scrutiny under Section 36 and who has notwithdrawn his candidature under Section 37 dies and a report of his deathis received before the publication of the list of contesting candidates undersection 38, or if a contesting candidate dies and a report of his death isreceived before the commencement of the poll, the returning officer shall,upon being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate, countermandthe poll and report the fact to the Election Commission and also to theappropriate authority and all proceedings with reference to the electionshall be commenced a new in all respects as if for a new election. Thisprovision "no doubt, therefore, contemplates countermanding of the electionas it provides for countermanding of the poll and commencement of newproceedings for holding such election as if it is a new election. Of coursein such a'- situation, no further nomination is necessary. In case ofcountermanding the election under Section 58a (2) (b), countermanding ofpoll is also necessarily involved. ( 45 ) NEITHER in Section 58a (2) (b) nor Section 52 no time is prescribed for holding election to return a candidate to the legislature but it is obvious that elections inevitably will have to be held in case the electionis countermanded and the steps will have to be taken promptly and freshproceedings will have to be commenced as if these are commenced for holding new election. It will, however, not be new election but the same electionto return a candidate to the legislature. It will be only a new election for the limited purpose for starting and commencing proceedings for holding such election of returning a candidate to the legislature. . It will, however, not be new election but the same electionto return a candidate to the legislature. It will be only a new election for the limited purpose for starting and commencing proceedings for holding such election of returning a candidate to the legislature. . ( 46 ) THE observations of the Supreme Court in para 31 of the judgment of Mallender Singh Gill's case that fresh poll (not a new election), canstill be a step in the Election, cannot advance the case of the petitioner. As already stated Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act has been enacted onlyw. e. f. 15. 3. 1989 and at the relevant time there was no such provision forcountermanding the election and since this provision has now been enactedand is a valid legislation and the President himself has asked the constituencies to return a candidate to the legislature in accordance with the Act,rules and Orders made thereunder and such an action is within the ambitand scope and functions of the Election Commission and if such a piece oflegislation warrants commencement of a procedure as if it is a new election. there cannot possibly be any objection to such a procedure. At any rate,this question was not in issue at that time and such a procedure has sincenow the statutory sanction. ( 47 ) IN this context the Supreme Court has explained the positionin Mahender Singh Gill's case whether the Election Commissioner wasclothed with plenary and comprehensive powers and functions under Article324 of the Constitution and could cancel the whole poll of a constituencyand direct a fresh poll. In the absence of any provision to that effect inthe Act or Rules framed thereunder, it has been held that the Constitutioncontemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilitiesof suprintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in theelection Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties andfunctions of many sorts, administrative or other depending on thecircumstances, (b) two limitations at least are laid on its plenary characterin the exercise thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislaturehas made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, thecommission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of. such provisionsbut where such law is silent Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act forthe avowed purposes of not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fairelection with expedition. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislaturehas made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, thecommission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of. such provisionsbut where such law is silent Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act forthe avowed purposes of not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fairelection with expedition. Secondly, the Commission shall be responsible tothe rule of law, act bona fide and be amenable to the norms of naturaljustice in so far as conformance to such canons can reasonably andrealistically be required of it as fair play-in-action in a most important areaof the constitutional order, viz. , elections. Admittedly, at that time thisprovision did not exist enabling the Election Commission to countermandthe election and order for re-election. However, the position, as it standstoday, provisions of Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act empower the Electioncommission to countermand the Election, and inevitably the freshproceedings with reference to that election, will have to be commencedafresh, as if it is a new election. ( 48 ) IN A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and Others (AIR 1985 SC 921) thesupreme Court has expressed a similar view as regards conduct of electionsis as follows: - " (A) When there is no Parliamentary legislation or rule made underthe said legislation, the Commision is free to pass any ordersin respect of the conduct of elections. (b) Where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder, itis not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rulesand pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of thecommission are meant to supplement rather than supplantthe law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Art. 324. (c) Where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Commission hasno doubt plenary powers under Article 324 to give anydirection in respect of the conduct of election, and" ( 49 ) SINCE there is a specific provision in the Act itself for countermanding the election, in view of the settled law, therefore, steps cancertainly be commenced for holding elections as if it is a new election and,therefore, this argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner must fail. ( 50 ) IT was vehemently contended time and again and strong reliancewas placed on para 32 of the Mahender Singh Gill's case wherein Justicekrishna Iyer has observed "if no re-poll had been directed the legalperspective would have been very different. The mere cancellation wouldhave then thwarted the course of the election and different considerationswould have come into play. " . ( 51 ) IN the light of these observations. Counsel have contended thatthe cancellation of election would thwart the course of election and sucha course is not permissible and, therefore, the order of countermand hasto be declared void. ( 52 ) I am afraid this argument again cannot be sustained for thesame reasons. Justice Krishna lyer has not concluded this question andhas observed that this question need not be chased as it was an hypotheticalcase. At the cost of repetition, it can be high-lighted that Section 58a (2) (b)has been enacted only w. e. f. 15. 3. 1989 at the relevant time whenmahender Stngh Gill's case was considered by the Supreme Court thisprovision was not available. It has aready been held that the electioncommission has got a power to countermand the election. However, he hasno power to order re-poll after countermand of the election. The Presidenton recommendation of Election Commission will have to issue notificationunder Sections 14 (2) or 15 (2) of the Act and only thereafter, the Electioncommission can issue notification fixing the dates of nominations, withdrawal of nominations and poll etc. Therefore, in these circumstances,election Commission could not have ordered simultaneously for holdingre-poll or re-election while passing the impugned order of countermand. ( 53 ) FURTHERMORE, it may be highlighted that the countermandingof election itself is an integral part of the election and is a step towards thecompletion of the election. Therefore, it cannot conceivably thwart thecourse of election as it has been tried to be argued by Counsel for thepetitioners. ( 54 ) THESE observations of the Supreme Court have been made inentirely different set of circumstances and situations and, therefore, this caseis clearly distinguishable. ( 55 ) EVEN otherwise, these observations cannot advance the case of thepetitioners as such observations have lost significance in view of the enactment of Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act w. e. f. 15-3-1989 which has nullifyingeffect on such observations. ( 55 ) EVEN otherwise, these observations cannot advance the case of thepetitioners as such observations have lost significance in view of the enactment of Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act w. e. f. 15-3-1989 which has nullifyingeffect on such observations. ( 56 ) NEXT submission was that the impugned order had been passed inviolation of the principles of natural justice. Such an order, therefore, isnull and void. This order is also bad in the eyes of law as that the samehas been passed without the report of the returning officer, which is acondition precedent for passing of such an order and also without taking intoconsideration the material circumstances into account. These arguments arebased on merits of the case. The petition is not maintainable. It is neithernecessary nor permissible to decide these questions in these writ petitions. These questions can be raised in the election petition in case it is filed andthe order of the election commission can be challenged under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act, i. e. . non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and therules. ( 57 ) MR. Shanti Bhushan next contended that Section 58a (2) (b)of the Act empowering the election commission to countermand the entireelections is unconstitutional, arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of theconstitution and the action taken by the election commission thereunder,therefore, will have to be declared ultra vires. He further submitted thatsince the vires of Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act itself has been challenged,the writ petition is maintainable. ( 58 ) I am afraid. Sec. 58a of the Act cannot be assailed and no arguments to this effect can be raised by the learned Counsel as paragraph 23'l' of the writ petition does not contain any specific, clear or unambiguousallegation on the basis of which the Section can be declared ultra vires. Infact it only makes bald assertions without any basis in the absence of whichthis question whether or not the Section is ultra vires of Article 14 of theconstitution cannot be examined. It is settled law that the burden of showing that the Act is arbitrary is basically upon the person who impeaches thelatter and that further the pleading must contain the allegations on whichviolation of Article 14 are based and that these allegations must be specific,clear and unambiguous and must contain sufficient particulars. It is settled law that the burden of showing that the Act is arbitrary is basically upon the person who impeaches thelatter and that further the pleading must contain the allegations on whichviolation of Article 14 are based and that these allegations must be specific,clear and unambiguous and must contain sufficient particulars. In thisconnection, reference may be made to Bank of Baroda v. Rednam Nagachayadevi, ( AIR 1989 SC 2105 ). It has been observed by the Supreme Court thatwhen a citizen wants to challenge the validity of any statute on the groundthat it contravenes Article 14, specific, clear and unambiguous allegationsmust be shown that the impugned statute is based on discrimination andthat such discrimination is not referable to any classification which isrational and which has nexus with the object intended to be achieved by thesaid statute. Judging from the point of law laid down by the Supremecourt, there is absolutely no material on record to show that Section 58ais violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Even otherwise having regardto the contents of Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act and the Scheme of the Act,there are ample safeguards provided in the statute against the arbitraryexercise of power by the election commission in countermanding the election. Therefore this contention of the learned Counsel must fail. ( 59 ) IT may be noted here that the Union of India was not a partyto the petition. Since the vires of Section 58a of the Act were challenged,notice was given to the Attorney General and also the Union of India. Mr. Madan Lokur, who appeared for the UOI, chose not to file any reply, asaccording to him no material had been placed on record in the pleadingswhich required reply and the matter was, therefore, heard without reply. ( 60 ) LASTLY it was contended by Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Bansalthat after countermanding the election by the election commission, no newelection has been ordered and unless new elections are held and concludedand results are declared, the validity or otherwise of the order of countermanding the election held on 21. 5. 1991 cannot be made a ground in theelection petition. There is no indication or likelihood of the elections beingre-held shortly. Therefore, the remedy before the election Court, isillusory and, therefore, the petitioners have every right to seek a writ ofmandamus from this Court directing the respondents to hold the elections. 5. 1991 cannot be made a ground in theelection petition. There is no indication or likelihood of the elections beingre-held shortly. Therefore, the remedy before the election Court, isillusory and, therefore, the petitioners have every right to seek a writ ofmandamus from this Court directing the respondents to hold the elections. This question, again, cannot be gone into/examined as no suchcase has been set up in the petition, nor any such relief has been asked forin the writ petition. In para (25) (b) of the petition, they have asked awrit of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in thenature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to re-consider the matterand order re-poll only in such polling stations as are said to have beenaffected by electoral malpractice as indicated in the reports of the Electoralofficers of the Constituency or the Central Observers. . ( 61 ) HOWEVER, it cannot be denied that once the order of countermanding the election has been passed by the election commission, therespondents are under statutory and constitutional obligation to take newsteps for holding the election as if it is a new election and these steps haveto be taken promptly and elections concluded at the earliest. In case therespondents are unable to take steps for holding the election promptly, thepetitioners will be entitled for the writ of mandamus commanding therespondents to hold the elections. I specifically asked the Attorney Generaland Counsel for UOI as to why the new steps for holding elections havenot been commenced so far once the countermanding of elections has beenordered. They stated to the Court that elections were being held in similarcircumstances in certain constituencies and the date of polling in suchelections was fixed as 16. 11. 1991. Judicial notice can be taken now thatelections have been since held in those constituencies. However, becausethese writ petitions are pending in the High Court, the Government of Indiahas not issued the notification for holding elections in these constituencies. However, they will hold elections promptly. In view of such statement ofthe Attorney General it is not necessary for this Court to issue a writ ofmandamus as there is no failure of duty on the part of the respondents tohold elections. In this connection reference may be made to Lakhrajsathramdas Lalvani v. N. M. Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer,bombay and Ors. In view of such statement ofthe Attorney General it is not necessary for this Court to issue a writ ofmandamus as there is no failure of duty on the part of the respondents tohold elections. In this connection reference may be made to Lakhrajsathramdas Lalvani v. N. M. Shah, Deputy Custodian cum Managing Officer,bombay and Ors. , ( AIR 1966 SC 334 ) wherein the Supreme Court has heldthat a writ of mandamus may be granted only in a case where there is astatutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure onthe part of that officer to discharge that statutory obligation. Therespondents are duty bound to take steps for holding elections promptlyand conclude such elections as early as possible after the disposal of thewrit petition. But at any rate, as already stated, neither the relief of holdingelection after the order of countermand has been asked for nor any case hasbeen set up. It is hoped that the respondents will take immediate steps forholding the elections and the elections will be held as early as possible. The petitioners shall be free to challenge such elections of the returnedcandidates on the ground the order of countermand passed by the electioncommission under Section 58a (2) (d) of the Act was not legal and validunder Section 100 (l) (d) of the Act. ( 62 ) MR. Bansal next contended that the word "countermand theelection" used in Section 58a (2) (B) of the Act should be read as "countermand the poll" as the interpretation in the context requires otherwise. Hehas tried to substantiate his submission not only on the ground that theelection Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution has been givenpower only to complete the election and not to interfere with the electiononce the election process is set in motion but also referred to Sees. 149 and153 of the Act. According to him in case of casual vacancies falling vacantin the House of People or an election to the House of the People is declaredvoid, the Election Commission shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), by a notification in the Gazette of India, call upon the Parliamentaryconstituency concerned to elect a person for the purpose of filling thevacancy so caused before such date as may be specified in the notification. Further, according to him, Election Commission for the conduct of theelection, if situation arises, can extend the time for the completion of anyelection by making necessary amendments in the notification issued by itunder Section 30 or Sub-section (1) of Section 39. Furthermore, accordingto him. Chapter IV deals with the matter relating to "the Poll". Thischapter provides for fixing time for poll, adjournment of poll in emergenciesfresh poll in the case of destruction etc. of ballot boxes and adjournment ofpoll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth-capturing etc. Having regard to the scheme of the Act, the words "countermand theelection" as find place in Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act, should be read as"countermand the poll". Furthermore such an interpretation shall be inharmony having regard to the provisions of counting of votes in Chapter V,particularly Section 64a and also Article 324 of the Constitution. If suchan interpretation is not put, according to him, it will be in conflict not onlywith other provisions of the Act but also Article 324 of the Constitution andsuch a provision, therefore, will be ultra vires of Article 324. He furtherstated that in such a situation, startling and embarrassing situations mightarise that the President would be left with no power to call upon theparliamentary constituencies to elect member and issue notification undersection 14 (2) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case as undersection 14 (1) general election can be held for the purpose of constituting anew House of the People on the expiration of the duration of the existinghouse or on its dissolution. According to him the House already standsconstituted and at this stage there is no question of dissolution and thecondition precedent for holding election under Section 14 (1) are not satisfied. Therefore, in case the word 'countermand the election' is not read as 'countermand the poll', no election can be held to return a candidate to thelegislature as the President has no power to issue such a notification. ( 63 ) THIS argument of Mr. Bansal has got to be rejected. It hasalready been discussed in detail that the order of countermand is an integralpart of the election and has been taken with a view to complete the electionsand in the interest of free, fair and purity of elections. ( 63 ) THIS argument of Mr. Bansal has got to be rejected. It hasalready been discussed in detail that the order of countermand is an integralpart of the election and has been taken with a view to complete the electionsand in the interest of free, fair and purity of elections. It has further beendiscussed and held that after the countermand of elections, fresh steps willhave to be commenced for holding elections as if it is a new election forwhich the President has every power to issue notifications under Section14 (2) and/or 15 (2) of the Act to hold the elections and set in motion theelectoral process. There is no legal impediment for the President to issueanother notification as the Act itself provides for one or more notificationskeeping in view the situations and circumstances of the case. In such asituation, there will be no inconsistency in reading the words "countermandthe elections" in Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act as they are and not as"countermand the poll", nor any context otherwise requires as has beencontended by Mr. Bansal. As already discussed earlier in detail that theword "election" has to be given natural meaning and it has to be read assuch and it cannot be read as "poll". ( 64 ) IT was again submitted by Mr. Bansal that once the power tocountermand the election is conceded to be with the Election Commission,there is likelihood that it might act arbitrarily like dispot and at certaintimes thereby abrogate and scrap the election process not only in one ormore constituencies but in all the constituencies as a whole. In this processthe very democratic system which is a basic feature of the constitutioa mightlead to jeopardy and peril and, therefore, this power to the election commission under Section 58a (2) (b) of the Act should be considered only asa power to countermand the poll. ( 65 ) THIS reasoning of Mr. Bansal, I must say, is strained and farfetched and cannot be accepted. In this context, the observations of thesupreme Court in para 38 in Mahender Singh Gill's case (supra) are relevantwherein the Supreme Court observed that the rule of law postulates thepervasiveness of the spirit of law throughout the whole range of governmentin the sense of excluding arbitrary official action in any sphere. And thesupremacy of valid law over the Commission argues itself. No one is animperium in imperio in our constitutional order. And thesupremacy of valid law over the Commission argues itself. No one is animperium in imperio in our constitutional order. It is reasonable to holdthat the Commissioner cannot defy the law armed by Art. 324. Likewise,his functions are subject to the norms of fairness and he cannot actarbitrarily. Unchecked power is alien to our system. ( 66 ) MR. Bansal lastly contended that in case such an interpretationthat the word "election" is not read as "poll", which, according to him, areinterchangeable, it will have startling repercussions and will frustrate themandate of the provisions of the Representation of People Act. Accordingto him, in case the election is allowed to be countermanded, then the newelection will have to be held and it is possible that on the date of election,a returned candidate who was not qualifiled in the previous election maybecome qualified in the new election and if elected, his election cannot bechallenged under Section 100 of the Act on the ground that he was notqualified on the date of the previous election. Furthermore, it may bepossible that under the provisions of the Act, the name of a candidate maybe deleted for some reason or the other from the Electoral Rolls undersection 23 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 and he may not beable to contest the new election and as such would not be able to challengethe order, of countermand passed in the previous election. It is furtherpossible that a candidate may use corrupt practice in the earlier election butnot in the new election and if he is returned to the legislature, then noground can be taken to challenge his election for using corrupt practiceswhich has already been held and countermanded. Therefore, such aninterpretation will but a premium on the corruption of the candidates andfrustrate very idea of purity, free and fair election. ( 67 ) THIS argument of Mr. Bansal has also to be rejected. As alreadydiscussed the Election connotes the entire procedure to be gone through toreturn such a candidate to the legislature. The new procedure which hasto be commenced to return the candidate to the legislature, after countermand of the election, will be only for a limited purpose that proceedings willbe initiated as if it is a new election. In substance it will be the same election and not a different election. The new procedure which hasto be commenced to return the candidate to the legislature, after countermand of the election, will be only for a limited purpose that proceedings willbe initiated as if it is a new election. In substance it will be the same election and not a different election. If the order for countermand of electionhas been passed by the Election Commission arbirtarily and violation ofprinciples of natural justiceor otherwise in contravention of the provisions ofthe Constitution, Act or Rules framed thereunder, the same can be challenged by way of election petition. ( 68 ) IN other connected writ petitions, the petitioners adopted thearguments of Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr. Bansal, which need not be dealtwith separately. ( 69 ) IN the light of what is discussed above, the writ petitions arenot maintainable and are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances,however, there shall be no order as to costs.