JUDGMENT : 1. Issue Rule 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that there is lack of complete identity in the perception of the two sides with regard to the matter in controversy between them. In these circumstances the only appropriate course is to make the direction given Order Dated April 4, 1994 in W.P. (C) No. 260/94 of 1994. hereinafter. 3. It may no doubt be appropriate for the State Government to undertake the performance of its Constitutional obligations towards the people of the State in larger pubic interest to the extent it is necessary for affording them the appropriate relief in the facts and circumstances pertaining to any particular point of time and relating to any particular segment of people in any part of the State. This is, however, subject to the legal constraints in any particular area by virtue of the statutory provisions attracted in any area in which elections have been announced. Whether any particular activity to be undertaken by the State Government is permissible within the bounds of law is in the first instance for the State Government to consider. If there be any controversy on this aspect and if the Election Commission thinks otherwise, the act of the State Government will have to be examined in accordance with law and violations, if any, could be visited with the consequences provided in accordance with law, it is not necessary for us to say anything further in this behalf at this stage in this matter. 4. As for the model code of conduct framed by the Election Commission and sought to he enforced by it to the extent, if any, it he beyond the strict requirements of statutory provisions, legal effect thereof has yet to be considered and decided. For this reason, we refrain from expressing even a prima-faice opinion on this aspect of the controversy between the parties. In the event, the Election Commission is of the view that any activity of the State Government is in breach of the requirements of the model code of conduct and is liable to be visited with legal consequences at the hands of the Election Commission, the Election Commission would he at liberty to seek necessary directions from this Court instead of taking any such action straightaway. However, we would expect all the constitutional authorities involved to discharge their respective duties for each other and avoiding any confrontation between them. Proper perception of the nature of their constitutional obligation should he helpful. 5. We also direct, in order to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and to avoid any needless controversy in this behalf in the other States that this directions shall be obeyed by the Election Commission of India in respect of the areas relating to all the forthcoming bye-elections and any such application required to be made in this behalf has to he moved in this Writ Petition itself. 6. List the Writ Petition for further Orders on 11.4.1994.