B. N. Kirpal, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) IN this writ petition,filed underarticle226ofthe Constitution,the challenge is to the order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner on 21st May, 1991 countermanding the election to the Meerut Parliamentary constituency and also the order dated 10th June, 1991 whereby the Chief Election Commissioner refused-to review the earlier order dated 21st May, 1991. ( 2 ) AFTER the dissolution of the 9th Lok Sabha, the President issued a Notification dated 19th April, 1991 under Section 14 of The Representation Of The People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 1951 Act) calling for the general elections to constitute the 10th Lok Sabha. The said Notification was as follows:- "s. O. Whereas it has been decided to hold a general election for the purpose of constituting a new House of the People, on the dissolution of the Ninth House of the People. "now therefore, in pursuance of the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of section 14 of The Representation of the People Act, 19,51, the President is pleased to call upon all parlimentary constituencies (other than those within the State of Jammu and Kashmir for which a separate notification will be issued in due course) to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the said Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder. [noj3 (3)/91-Leg. II] By order (K. J. Mohanpuria) "chief Election Commissioner of India" ( 3 ) IT may here be stated that two other similar orders were passed by the Chief Election Commissioner countermanding the poll to the Parliamentary constituency of Patna and also to the Parliamentary constituency of Agota (U. P. ). ( 4 ) THE petitioner made a representation to the Chief Election Commissioner on 24th May, 1991 praying for review/rectification of the aforesaid order countermanding the election. After hearing the petitioner and the other contesting candidates of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency, as also of the five assembly segments of that constituency from where elections were being held simultaneously to the State Legislative Assembly, he passed an order dated 10th June, 1991 declining to revoke or modify the order dated 21st May, 1991. After hearing the petitioner and the other contesting candidates of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency, as also of the five assembly segments of that constituency from where elections were being held simultaneously to the State Legislative Assembly, he passed an order dated 10th June, 1991 declining to revoke or modify the order dated 21st May, 1991. Thereafter the present writ petition was filed, inter alia, challenging the aforesaid order dated 21st May, 1991 and 10th June, 1991 and the further prayer which has been made is that a writ of mandamus be directed to be issued to the respondents to hold adjourned poll or re-poll in the affected polling stations of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THE main contention in the writ petition, which was urged before us, is that the Chief Election Commissioner had no power, in law, to countermand the elections. In this connection the submission was that the provisions of Section 58-A of the 1951 Act had been misconstrued. It is also contended that, on facts, there was no justification for the impugned order dated 21st May, 1991 being passed countermanding the elections, as there was no report of the Returning Officer that the booth capturing had taken place in such a large number of polling stations that the entire election was likely to be affected. According to the petitioner the impugned orders had resulted in stultification and halting of the elections. ( 6 ) APART from justifying the impugned orders on merits, a preliminary objection which was raised by the respondents was that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in view of the specific bar to interference by the Courts in electoral matters as per Article 329 of the Constitution. The submission of the respondents is that the electoral process has not yet been completed and the present petition is premature and the only remedy which can beavailed by the petitioner is by way of anelection petition and in view of the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution the writ petition was not maintainable. It was also con- tended that the Election Commission could countermand the entire election. ( 7 ) THIS writ petition as well as petitions filed challenging the countermanding of elections to Patna constituency were heard by a Division Bench of Mahinder Narain and P. N. Nag,jj. It was also con- tended that the Election Commission could countermand the entire election. ( 7 ) THIS writ petition as well as petitions filed challenging the countermanding of elections to Patna constituency were heard by a Division Bench of Mahinder Narain and P. N. Nag,jj. There was a difference of opinion between the two Hon ble Judges. Mahinder Narain,j, inter alia, came to the conclusion that the power conferred under Section 58a (2) (b) of the 1951 Act which purported to give power to countermand any election to the Election Commission was too wide and arbitrary and, therefore, ultra vires the Constitution. The Learned Judge further came to the conclusion that in the instant due the order of countermanding the election had resulted in thwarting the course of election and as the process of election had been brought to an end there was no bar to the filing of the writ petition. P. N. Nag, J, however, came to the conclusion that this Court, in view of the provisions of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of the order and the writ petition was not maintainable. Subsequently, in view of the difference of opinion between the two Hon ble Judges, the case was directed to be posted before C. L. Chaudhry, J. The Hon ble Judge sent back the reference unanswered, inter alia, for the reason that points of difference between the two Judges had not been set out. It is thereafter that the Chief Justice with the consept of the parties directed the writ petition to be listed before Full Bench. It may here be stated that as far as the challenge to the order passed in respect of Patna Parliamentary constituency is concerned the same has been withdrawn by the petitioner therein and the said writ petition no longer subsists. ( 8 ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions it is necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the law. Article 79 of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of State and the House of the People. Article 79 of the Constitution of India provides that there shall be a Parliament for the Union which shall consist of the President and the two Houses to be known respectively as the Council of State and the House of the People. Article 83 (2) provides that the House of the People, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the House. Article 85 (1) pertains to the Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution of Parliament and it, inter alia, provides that each House of Parliament shall meet at such time and place as the President may think fit but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session. ( 9 ) FROM the aforesaid constitutional provisions it is evident that the process of general elections has to be completed in such a manner that not more than six months elapse between the last sitting of the dissolved House and the first sitting of the newly constituted House. ( 10 ) THE provision with regard to elections is contained in Part XV of the Constitution. Sub-article (1) of Article 324 provides that the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls, inter alia, for the conduct of all elections to the Parliament shall be vested in a Commission referred to in the Constitution as the Election Commission. Sub-article (2) provides that the Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President. may from time to time fix and appoint. The power to make provisions with regard to elections to the Legislatures is conferred on the Parliament by Article 327. of the Constitution. It, inter alia provides that subject to the provisions of the Constitution the Parliament may from time to time by law make provisions with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections to either House of Parliament including the preparation of electoral rolls, delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House or Houses. The bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters is ntained in Article 329 which reads as follows: "329 -Bar to interference by courts in electoral matters:- 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, made or purporting to be made under article 327 or article 328, shall not be called in question in any court; (b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the Houses or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature. " ( 11 ) THE Parliament has enacted The Representation of The People Act, 1950 and The Representation of The People Act, 1951. Where as the 1950act is not concerned with the holding of the elections but it provides for allocation of seats and de-limitation of constituen- cies, preparation of electoral rolls and the manner of filling seats in the Council of States, the 1951act provides for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament, the qualifications and dis-qualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision on doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. ( 12 ) THE general elections start with the issuance of a Notification under Section 14 of the 1951 Act, which reads as follows:- "14. ( 12 ) THE general elections start with the issuance of a Notification under Section 14 of the 1951 Act, which reads as follows:- "14. Notification for general election to the House of the People - (1) Ageneral election shall be held for the purpose of constituting a new House of the People on the expiration of the duration of the existing House or on its dissolution: (2) For the said purpose the President shall, by one or more notifications published in the Gazette of India on such date or dates as may be recommended by the Election Commission call upon all parliamentary constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of this Act and of the rules and orders made thereunder; Provided that where a general election is held otherwise than on the dissolution of the existing House of the People, no such notification shall be issued at any time earlier than six months prior to the date on which the duration of that House would expire under the provisions of clause (2) of article 83. " ( 13 ) THE broad features of the electoral process after the issuance of a Notification by the President under Section 14 are that nominations are filed by the candidates; then nomination papers are scrutinised; a date is fixed for the withdrawal of candidature of those candidates whose nomination papers are in order and thereafter a poll is held and the election result declared. The electoral process relating to the general elections in other words, commences with the issuance of a Notification under Section 14 of the 1951 Act and is completed with the declaration and publication of the result under Section 73 of the said Act. Thereafter if any dispute regarding election arises the same is to be adjudicated upon by presenting an election petition, and the grounds for declaring the election void are contained in Section 100. ( 14 ) IN this matter we are essentially concerned with, and arguments have been addressed, with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 58-A of the Act, sub- section (2) (b) of which provides for the countermanding of elections in a constituency. ( 14 ) IN this matter we are essentially concerned with, and arguments have been addressed, with regard to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 58-A of the Act, sub- section (2) (b) of which provides for the countermanding of elections in a constituency. ( 15 ) IN the impugned Order of 21st May, 1991 it has been stated that the power to countermand the election has been exercised under Article 324 of the Constitution as well as sections 58,58-A, 135-A and 153 of the 1951 Act. Section 58 contains provisions for fresh poll in case of destruction etc. of ballot papers. Section 58-A provides for adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on ground of booth capturing, Section 135-A provides for offences of booth capturing and Section 153 enables the Election Commission to extend the time for completion of elections. ( 16 ) IN the present case it is an admitted fact that no directions have been issued either in the impugned Order or separately by any other order either under Section 58,58a or Section 135-A or 153 of the 1951 Act. The reference to the said Sections in the order, was unnecessary and of no consequence. In this view of the matter we have to judge the action of the respondents under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 58a of the 1951 Act and the other two provisions referred to in the said Order. ( 17 ) IT is first to be examined whether an order like the present could have been passed under Article 324 of the Constitution after the enactment of Section 58a of the 1951 Act. In order to do so it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 58a in greater detail. The said Section reads as follows- "58a. In order to do so it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 58a in greater detail. The said Section reads as follows- "58a. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing:- (1) if at any electioln:- (a) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll (hereafter in this section referred to as a place) in such a manner that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained; or (b) booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such a maner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the Election Commission. (2) The Election Commission shall, on the receipt of a report from the returning officer under sub-section (1) and after taking all 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 that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours 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 the election is likely to be affected, or that booth capturing had affected counting of votes in such a manner as to affect the result of the election, countermand the election in that constituency. " ( 18 ) THE power under sub-section (2) of Section 58a can be exercised by the Election Commission only if the conditions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 58a. are satisfied. In other words it is only if booth capturing takes place in such a manner that the result of the poll at a polling station or place cannot be ascertained or booth capturing takes place in any place for counting of votes in such a manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained that the action under sub-section (2) of Section 58a can be contem- plated. Whereas sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58a, in the circumstances mentioned therein, contemplates fresh poll to be taken at some polling station, sub-clause (b), on the other hand, provides for countermanding of elections in that constituency if booth capturing in large number of polling stations or places, in the opinion of the Commis- sioner, affects the result of elections. What is the meaning of the expression "countermand the election" we will refer to subsequently but for the present it is sufficient to note that the power which can be exercised by the Election Commission in the event of booth capturing is contained in sub-section (2) of Section 58a. This being so can the Election Commission exercise powers under Article 324 of the Constitution where, capturing of booths is alleged? ( 19 ) IN our opinion when the 1951 Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide for such a situation then the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution, when such a situation arises, cannot be invoked. It was sought to be contended that in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 the Supreme Court had held that under Article 324 of the Constitution the powers of the Election Commission were of the widest amplitude and in the exercise of those powers it could cancel poll in the entire constituency. That was a case where certain ballot boxes were removed and the Commission came to the conclusion that it was not possible to continue with the electoral process and it directed re-poll in the entire Ferozepur Parliamentary constituency. The Commisison, in that case, in exercise of its power under Article 324 of the Constitution not only countermanded the poll which had taken place but also directed repoll on the dates which were fixed. It is after the aforesaid decision that Section 58a has been incorporated in the 1951 Act. It appears to us that the intention of the Legislature clearly was to provide in the 1951 Act a provision enabling the Election Commission to tackle with the situation where booth capturing takes place. We may here mention that booth capturing has been defined in Section 135a and includes seizure of polling stations, ballot boxes, threatening of electors and preventing them from going to the polling stations etc. We may here mention that booth capturing has been defined in Section 135a and includes seizure of polling stations, ballot boxes, threatening of electors and preventing them from going to the polling stations etc. It would, therefore, appear that in all situations where the actual voting process is adversely affected by reason of booth capturing, the jurisdiction of the Election Commission is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 58a of the 1951act and power under Article 324 cannot be resorted to. In M. S. Gill s case (supra) the following observations at page 886 and 891 of the report are relevant: At page 886 "when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection, with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent Art. 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition. "at page 891 "article 324 (1) vests in the Election Commisison the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President held under the Constitution. Article 324 (1) is thus couched in wide terms. Power in any democratic set up, as is the pattern of our polity, is to be exercised in accordance with law. That is why Articles 327 and 328 provide for making of provisions with respect to all matters relating to or in connection with elections for the Union Legislatures and for the State legislatures respectively. When appropriate laws are made under Art. 327 by Parliament as well as under Article 328 by the State Legislatures, the Commission has to act in conformity with those laws and the other legal provisions made thereunder. Even so, both Arts. 327 and 328 are "subject to the provisions" of the Constitution which include Art. 324 and Art. 329. When appropriate laws are made under Art. 327 by Parliament as well as under Article 328 by the State Legislatures, the Commission has to act in conformity with those laws and the other legal provisions made thereunder. Even so, both Arts. 327 and 328 are "subject to the provisions" of the Constitution which include Art. 324 and Art. 329. Since the conduct of all elections to the various legislative bodies and to the offices of the President and the Vice-President is vested under Article 324 (1) in the Election Commission, the framers of the constitution took care to leaving scope for exercise of residuary power by the Commission in its own right, as a creature of the Constitution, in the infinite variety of situations that may emerge from time to time in such a large democracy as ours. Every contingency could not be foreseen,or anticipated with precision. That is why there is no hedg- ing in Article324. . The Commisison may be required to cope with some situation which may not be provided for in the enacted laws and the rules. That seems to be the raison d etre for the opening clause in Articles 327 and 328 which leaves the exercise of powers under Article 324 operative and effective when it is reasonably called for in a vacuous area. There is, however, no doubt whatsoever that the Election Commission will have to conform to the existing laws and rules in exercising its powers and performing its manifold duties for the conduct of free and fair elections. ". ( 20 ) REFERENCE may usefully be made, at this stage, to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai, AIR 1984 SC 921 . In that case for an assembly election at some of the polling stations orders were passed by the Commission directing the casting of votes by mechanical process. After the election was completed an election petition was filed and one of the contentions which was raised was that the direction of the Election Commission that votes be cast byelectronic machines was contrary to the rules which contemplated casting of ballot papers. After the election was completed an election petition was filed and one of the contentions which was raised was that the direction of the Election Commission that votes be cast byelectronic machines was contrary to the rules which contemplated casting of ballot papers. On behalf of the Election Commission reliance was sought to be placed on the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution and it was contended that under that Article such directions could be issued specially when there was no prohibition to the use of the voting machines. Rejecting this contention the Supreme Court summed up the legal and constitutional position at page 927 of the judgment as follows:- " (B) where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder, it is not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words, the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Art. 324. " ( 21 ) THE principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases is clearly applicable here. Just as in Jose s case direction could not be issued for voting with the help of electronic machines because that was not contemplated by the rules, similarly, in the present case, no action could be taken by the Election Commission, in the case of booth capturing, which is not contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 58a. To put it differently power of the Election Commission under Article 324 (1) of the Constitution cannot be exercised in a manner differently than what is contemplated by Section 58a. The Election Commission cannot ignore the provisions of Section 58a and, in the case of booth capturing, pass an order which is not contemplated by sub-section (2) of Section 58a. ( 22 ) TO give an example, under Section 52 of the 1951 Act when a candidate dies before the poll has taken place the said Section provides for countermanding of the poll and for subsequent steps to be taken thereafter. It, inter alia, states that after countermanding of the poll all proceedings with reference to the election shall commence anew in all respects as if it was a new election. It, inter alia, states that after countermanding of the poll all proceedings with reference to the election shall commence anew in all respects as if it was a new election. The proviso provides that no further nomination shall be necessary in the case of a person who was a contesting candidate at the time of counter- manding of the poll. As the death of a candidate and the situation arising there from is dealt with under Section 52 of the Act, it is not possible in law for the Election Commission to act 4 in purported exercise of its powers under Article 324 and pass an order which is not contemplated by the said section. The candidates whose nominations have been accepted would continue to be the candidates even after the countermanding of the poll, on the death of one of the candidates and the Election Commission in such a case can only act under the provisions of Section 52 and cannot act in a different manner by invoking the powers under Article 324. The safeguards which are provided under Section 52 cannot be taken away by passing of an order under Article 324. Similarly the powers of the Election Commission in cases where booth capturing has taken place are provided for by sub- section (2) of Section 58a and there can be no exercise of power under Article 324 in cases covered by Section 58-A. Therefore, the Election Commission could not have, in law, invoked the provisions of Article 324 while issuing the impugned Notification dated 21st May, 1991. At this stage Mr. G. Ramaswamy on behalf of the respondents very fairly conceded that the present Order dated 21st May, 1991 should be regarded as having been issued under Section 58a and not under Article 324 of the Constitution. ( 23 ) THIS brings us to the question as to what is the meaning of the expression "countermand the election" occurring in Section 58a (2) (b), which expression has been repeated by the Election Commission in its impugned order of 21st May, 1991. Whether the said word "election" could be given a wider meaning or a narrower meaning is a question which has been agitated before us. ( 24 ) THERE are two possible views in this regard. Whether the said word "election" could be given a wider meaning or a narrower meaning is a question which has been agitated before us. ( 24 ) THERE are two possible views in this regard. It has been submitted before us on behalf of the respondents that the word "election" has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the 1951 Act and the same is as fol-lows. "2 (D) "election" means an election to fill aseat, or seats in either House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir. " ( 25 ) REFERRING to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. P-Punnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64 and also to the decision of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) it was sought to be contended that the word "election" would mean the entire election process commencing from the issuance of the Notification under Section 14 of the Act till the declaration and notification of the result. It was, therefore, submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the use of the word "election" in Section 58a (2) (b) was deliberate and what was intended was countermanding of the entire election including the notification undcr,sec. l4 in regard to this constituency. On the other hand the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the word "election" should be given a restricted meaning. ( 26 ) REFERRING to the provisions of Section 2 (1) of the 1951 Act it is clear that the definition of the word "election" has to be understood in the context in which the said word occurs. In Punnuswami s case the Supreme Court itself has observed that the word "election" occurring in Article 329 (b) is a word of long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representative-in a democratic institution and has acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning; "in the narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected". In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected". Again at page 68 of the judgment, after referring to Halsbury,s Laws of England, Edn. 2 Vol. 2 it was observed in Punnuswami s case (supra) that: "the discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word "election" can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process. " ( 27 ) IT is clear that the holding of a poll is an important step in the completion of the electoral process. The question which arises for consideration, as already stated, is whether the word "election" occurring in Section 58a (2) (b) would mean only poll or would have a wider meaning. ( 28 ) IF the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted the implication of that would be that not only would the poll itself be countermanded, on orders being issued under Section 58a (2) (b) but the entire process commencing with the issuance of Notification under Section 14 would be set at naught. This is infact what was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Notification which is issued under Section 14 is issued, on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner but by the President. By accepting the contention of the respondents the effect would be that this Notification would stand superseded in respect of Parliamentary constituencies where booth capturing has taken place. Secondly the nominations which were filed and accepted would stand cancelled. Even though in the case of Section 52 the nominations are kept alive though poll is countermanded on the death of a candidate, in the case like the present even the nominations which had been validly accepted would be rendered nugatory. Thirdly under Section 23 of the 1950act the electoral rolls cannot be revised after the last date of the acceptance of the nomination papers but with the cancellation of the entire election even that safeguard would vanish. Fourthly whereas under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58a there is a requirement to specify fresh dates for the poll at different polling stations) under sub-clause (b) of Section 58a (2) there is no requirement. Fourthly whereas under sub-clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 58a there is a requirement to specify fresh dates for the poll at different polling stations) under sub-clause (b) of Section 58a (2) there is no requirement. Can it mean that once an order is issued under Section 58a (2) (b) there is no obligation on theElection Commission to refix the date for the holding of the poll or for the completion of the electoral process. Another, and a more fundamental objection to the acceptance of this contention would be that if the entire election is regarded as being countermanded and a new election is to commence with the issuance of Section 14 Notification would it mean that the first election has been aborted and a new election has taken place. If the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is correct, this must be the necessary result. A question would then arise as to when can the order passed under Section 58a (2) (b) be challenged by way of an election petition. If the first election has aborted then no candidate is returned and unless a candidate is returned no election petition under Section 83 can be filed. ( 29 ) IT appears to us that the intention of the Legislature clearly was that the entire election was not to be countermanded and the word "election" occurring in Section 58a (2) (b) must be given a restricted meaning. Examining the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 58a closely we find that under its sub-clause (a) fresh poll in some polling stations is to be ordered after declaring the poll at those polling stations to be void and the Election Commission is duty bound to appoint a date and fix the hours for the fresh polls. Sub-dause (b) of Section 58a (2) is an alternative provision to sub-clause (a ). It provides that where booth capturing is to such a large extent at a number of polling stations that the Commission is satisfied that the result of the election is likely to be affected, then, notwithstanding the fact that at a number of polling stations no booths have been captured still it can under sub-clause (b) of Section 58a (2) order the poll in all the polling stations to be countermanded. Sub-clause (a) deals with the case of only those polling stations where booth capturing had taken place but sub-clause (b) enables the cancellation of poll even in those stations where no booth capturing has taken place, provided booth capturing in a constituency was to such a large extent so as to satisfy the Election Commission that the entire result of the election was likely to be affected. Providing for a complete countermanding of the entire, election without fixing dates for re-poll or extending the time for completion of election could obviously not have been regarded as a solution to the problem created by the capturing of booths. If the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted then, an order countermanding the entire election would result in the thwarting of the election process and cannot be regarded as a step in aid of completion of the electoral process. In this connection it will beappropriate to refer to the following passage occurring in paragraph 31 at page 868 in Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra): - "we are concerned only to say that if the regular poll,for some reasons, has failed to reach the goal of choosing by plurality the returned candidate and to achieve this object a fresh poll (not a new election) is needed, it may still be a step in the election. The deliberance of Dunkirk is part of the strategy of counter-attack. Wise or valid, is another matter. "again in paragraph 32 of the judgment it was observed as follows:- "32. On the assumption, but leaving the question of the validity of the direction for re-poll open for determination by the Election Tribunal, we hold that a writ petition challenging the cancellation coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a step in election and is therefore barred by Article 329 (b ). If no re-poll had been directed the legal perspective would have been very different. The mere cancellation would have then thwarted the course of the election and different considerations would have come into play. We need not chase a hypothetical case. " (Emphasis added) ( 30 ) IN Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra), as already noted, a re-poll had been ordered whereas in the present case no re-poll has been ordered with the issuance of an Order dated 21st May, 1991. We need not chase a hypothetical case. " (Emphasis added) ( 30 ) IN Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra), as already noted, a re-poll had been ordered whereas in the present case no re-poll has been ordered with the issuance of an Order dated 21st May, 1991. What was regarded as a hypothetical case in Mohinder Singh Gill s case has actually happened in the present case. This has happened because the view of the Election Commissioner was that the expression "countermand the elections" in Section 58a (2) (b) means countermanding the entire election and not the poll itself. As we read the said provision it is clear that the intention of the Legislature was that the derailed process should be set right. Such a situation has been pithily described in Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra) in the following words:- "if election bears the larger connotation, if calling in question possesses a semantic sweap in plain English, if policy and principle are tools for interpretatibn of statutes, language permitting, the conclusion is irresistible, even though the argument contra may have emotional impact and ingenious appeal, that the catch-all jurisdiction under Art. 226 cannot consider the correctness, legality or otherwise of the direction for can cellation integrated with re-poll. For, the prima facie purpose of such a re-poll was to restore a derailed poll process and to complete it through the salvationary effort of a re-poll" (emphasis added) ( 31 ) WE have a case here which is different from any other which has been decided by any Court so far. A situation has arisen where the election has been countermanded and no fresh date fixed. As per the respondents because of booth capturing not only the polling but even the nominations of candidate and the Presidential notification igniting the election are sought to be set at naught. According to the respondents this order cannot be challenged under Art. 226. But since the election is not being contemplated and in fact is sought to be cancelled, with the result that no election petition can be filed, to meet such a situation can Sec. 58a not be given a restricted meaning? The answer, perhaps, lies in the following observations of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra) at page 862:- "19. The answer, perhaps, lies in the following observations of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra) at page 862:- "19. 4 The old articles of the supreme lex meet new challenges of life,the old legal pillars suffer new stresses. So we have to adapt the law and develop its latent capabilities if novel situations, as here, are encountered. That is why in the reasoning we have adopted and the perspective we have projected, not literal nor lexical but liberal and visional is our interpretation of the articles of the Constitution and the provisions of the Act. Lord Denning s words are instructive: Law does not stand still. It moves continually. Once this is recognised, then the task of the Judge is put on a higher plane. He must consciously seek to mould the law so as to serve the needs of the time, must not be a mere mechanic, a mere working mason, laying brick on brick, without thought to the overall design. He must be an architect - thinking of the structure as a whole building for society a system of law which is strong, durable and just. It is on his work that civilised society itself depends. " ( 32 ) IN the election law wherever any infirmity or illegality occurs the electoral process is stopped, the illegality removed and the process is re-started so that the electoral process is completed expeditiously. Even Article 329 (b) clearly gives an indication that the intention of the framers of the Constitution was that the electoral process should not be interfered with and it should be completed at the very earliest. It is for this reason that the jurisdiction of the courts was barred to any challenge to any order which is passed in the conduct of any election but, as observed by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill s case (supra) if any order is passed which has the effect of thwarting the election then, of course, that can be challenged. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with the same because in our opinion the order countermanding the elections can only mean countermanding the polls and if that be so the Election Commission should, simultaneously with the issuance of the Notification under Section 58a (2) (b) have also issued a fresh polling programme after extending the date under Section 153 and should also have made the necessary amendments to the earlier Notification issued under Section 30 of the 1951 Act. The matter may be viewed from another angle. ( 33 ) IF the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is correct it would mean that the Notification under Section 14 would also stand superseded. In para 39 at page 869 of the judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill s case it has been observed bythe Supreme Court that the power under Article 324 has to be exercised not arbitrarily but in keeping with the guidelines of the rule of law and not stultifying the Presidential notification nor existing legislation. Views to the same effect are echoed in the observations of P. K. Goswami, J. in Mohinder Singh Gill s case where it was observed by his Lordship in paragraph 119 that ;- "it is true that in exercise of powers under Article 324 (1) the Election Commission cannot do something impinging upon the power of the President in making the Notification unde Section 14 of the Act. But after the Notification has been issued by the President, the entire electoral process is in the charge of the Election Commission and the Commission is exclusively responsible for the conduct of the election without reference to any outside agency. " ( 34 ) IT is clear from the above that if a narrower interpretation is given to the words "countermand the election" occurring in Section 58a (2) (b) then, there would be no occasion of stultifying the Presidential notification or impinging upon the power of the President. ( 35 ) THE capturing of booths took place at the stage of polling and, therefore, the election stood derailed and can be put back on rails with the order of fresh polls. ( 35 ) THE capturing of booths took place at the stage of polling and, therefore, the election stood derailed and can be put back on rails with the order of fresh polls. In the case of death of a candidate, a situation covered by Section 52 of the 1951 Act, the derailment takes place with reference to the candidature itself and, therefore, the electoral process must start with effect from taking in fresh nomination papers while, at the same time, preserving and continuing with the existing nominations which have already been filed. In this way the electoral process which commenced with the issuance of Section 14 Notification would continue and would culminate in the declaration of the result and issuance of a notification in this behalf. ( 36 ) THE fact that the word "election" may mean only poll is also evident from a Notification dated 23rd May, 1991 issued by the Election Commission itself. After the electoral process had commenced with the issuance of Presidential notification on 19th April, 1991 there occurred the tragic assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi. As the polling had not taken place in all the constituencies in India the Election Commission issued a Notification dated 23rd May, 1991 in exercise of its powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution, Section 30 and 153 of the 1951 Act and the said Notification, inter alia, provided that-: "the elections to the constituencies fixed for 23rd May, 1991 will be held on 12thof June, 1991. The elections to the constituencies fixed for 26th May, 1991, will now be held on 15th June, 1991; and the date before which the election shall be completed in all the above mentioned constituencies will be 18th June, 1991. " ( 37 ) IT is important to note that the Election Commission itself has equated the word "election" to poll . What was fixed for 12th June, 1991 instead of 23rd May, 1991 and 15th June, 1991 instead of 26th May, 1991, by this notification of 23rd May, 1991 was polling in the constituencies where it had not taken so far. Therefore, if the Election Commission itself used the word "election" instead of "poll" it would be permissible to understand or restrict the expression "countermand the election" in Section 58a (2) (b) to mean "countermand the poll" and no more. Therefore, if the Election Commission itself used the word "election" instead of "poll" it would be permissible to understand or restrict the expression "countermand the election" in Section 58a (2) (b) to mean "countermand the poll" and no more. The notification dated 23rd May, 1991 was not issued under Section 58a but the Election Commission has used the word "election" to mean "poll". Therefore, it would not be doing violence with the language if the word "election" in Section 58a (2) (b) is understood to mean "poll". If the word "election" was to mean election in its entirety viz. , from the issuance of Section 14 Notification to the declaration of result, then the countermanding of elections could take place only after the election is complete. This has obviously not happened in the present case and cannot happen in a situation contemplated by Section 58a. Just as in Section 52 when a candidate dies and the poll is countermanded similarly when booth capturing takes place it is only the poll which can be regarded as being countermanded. Countermanding the election can only mean, in the context in which the expression occurs, as countermanding the poll. ( 38 ) IN the Order of 21st May, 1991 issued in respect of the Meerut Parliamentary constituency the expression no doubt which is used is "countermand the election". This expression in the said order has obviously been lifted from the provisions of Section 58a (2) (b ). Just as the expression "countermand the election" in Section 58a (2) (b) must, in our view, mean countermand the poll, similarly the words "countermand the election" occurring in the order of the Election Commission dated 21st May, 1991 must be regarded as countermanding the poll. This being so the Election Commission ought to have exercised its powers under Section 30 and 153 of the 1951 Act. New dates of poll should have been fixed and the date for completion of the election extended. This is also contemplated by sub-clause (a) of Section 58a (2)and the same procedure should have been adopted when the polling in the entire constituency is sought to be countermanded. ( 39 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents is right in contending that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the merits of the order dated 21st May, 199l Article 329 (b) is a bar to the same. ( 39 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents is right in contending that it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the merits of the order dated 21st May, 199l Article 329 (b) is a bar to the same. The view which we have taken would result in thecompletion of the election which commenced with the issuance of the Presidential notification of 19th April, 1991 and after re-poll is held and result declared it will then be open to the petitioner, if he is still aggrieved to file an election petition under Section 81 of the 1951 Act on the grounds of Section 100 of the said Act, challenging the order of 21st May, 1991. ( 40 ) WE may here note that Mr. Bansal had strenuously urged that there was no report of the Returning Officer or any other report which could have justified the passing of the impugned order. He further submitted that even though poll may have been vitiated in some of the polling stations there was no reason that re-polling should have been ordered in the entire constituency. We are of the opinion that these submissions cannot be raised before us in view of the bar of Article 329 (b ). The act or inaction in furtherance of election can be challenged only by way of an election petition but if the act destroys or thwarts the election this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can interfere. In the present case bygiving a restricted meaning to the word "countermand the election" the impugned order of 21st May, 1991 only means countermanding the polls and as this is an act in furtherance of the election, therefore, it cannot bechallenged because of Article 329 (b) but because of the non-issuance of Notification under Section 153 and nonfixing of the poll dates under Section 30 this Court is empowered and not debarred by Article 329 (b) to issue a direction in this behalf. In other words it is open to this Court to direct the Election Commission to complete the electoral process and not to abort it in the middle. No order of the Election Commission is allowed to be challenged on merits in this petition. In other words it is open to this Court to direct the Election Commission to complete the electoral process and not to abort it in the middle. No order of the Election Commission is allowed to be challenged on merits in this petition. As we are not going into the merits of the order of 21st May, 1991 or 10th June) 1991 the Court will be failing in its duty if it does not direct the Election Commission to proceed with and complete the electoral process with regard to election to the Meerut Parliamentary constituency, which started with the issuance of a notification under Section 14. Mr. Ramaswamy submitted that if we construe the provisions of Section 58a (2) (b) in a narrower sense in the way in which we have done then, the Election Commission will take immediate steps to complete the electoral process and order re-poll in the constituency and this election will be completed on the basis of the earlier electoral rolls which existed at the time when the polling first took place, on 20th May, 1991. This is because the provisions of Section 23 of the 1950 Act would be applicable and there being no re-nomination the electoral rolls which existed at the time when the constituency went to polls cannot be altered or amended. ( 41 ) WE, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the Election Commission to complete the electoral process and hold a re-poll to the 80-Meerut Parliamentary constituency as expeditiously as possible and in accordance with law. Parties to bear their own costs.