B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE decision of the State Election Commission dated 17-8-2001 directing the Election Officer, Giddalur Gram Panchayat to countermand the poll held on 17-8-2001 to elect the Sarpanch and 4th Ward to Gram Panchayat Giddalur is impugned in this writ petition on various grounds. ( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the question as to whether the impugned decision suffers from any legal or constitutional infirmities, a few relevant facts may have to be noticed. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is one of the contesting candidates for the office of the Sarpanch of Giddalur Gram Panchayat. According to the schedule, the poll was to be held on 17-8-2001 between 7 a. m. and 1 p. m. The first respondent herein has been appointed as Election Officer Stage-II to conduct elections for the office of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Giddalur, Prakasam District. The poll commenced at 7 a. m. on 17-8-2001 as per the schedule and completed by 1 p. m. in all the 40 polling stations. After completion of formalities, the ballot boxes were transported to the counting centre. The counting process as scheduled has to commence at 2 p. m. ( 4 ) IT is required to notice that one Y. Satyanarayana, one of the contesting candidates died in the early houres of 17-8-2001. The State Election Commission received a telephone call informing the Secretary of the State Election Commission that the said Satyanarayana seeking election to the office of the Sarpanch died in the night, but the poll was going on as usually. The Secretary contacted the Collector, Prakasham District to ascertain the facts. The Collector confirmed that he too received information about the death of a contesting candidate at 8-30 a. m. and by that time the polling has already been commenced. The Secretary of the State Election Commission contacted the observer and requested him to proceed to Giddalur and ascertain the facts. The Observer visited the village and enquired into the matter and reported from Giddalur about the death of one of the contesting candidates around 6-15 a. m. on 17-8-2001. In the meanwhile, the Collector, Prakasham District also confirmed the said fact as reported by the observer. The Observer visited the village and enquired into the matter and reported from Giddalur about the death of one of the contesting candidates around 6-15 a. m. on 17-8-2001. In the meanwhile, the Collector, Prakasham District also confirmed the said fact as reported by the observer. The Collector further reported that by the time the news of death of another contesting candidate was received it was already 7 a. m. and there were 45 polling stations and it was not feasible for the Election Officer to countermand the poll and secind intimation to all the 45 polling stations before 7 a. m. In the circumstances, the polling has been continued. ( 5 ) THE State Election Commission based on the report of the observer and the information of the District Collector passed the impugned order directing the Election Officer, Giddalur Gram Panchayat to countermand the poll under Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994 (for short the Conduct of Election Rules ) and ignore the polling process that was conducted for the post of Sarpanch and 4th Ward Member and to await the further orders from the State Election Commission. That is how the counting of votes had not begun even after completion of poll. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that it is clearly evident from the record available that the Election Officer and others have received the information about the death of one of the contesting candidates only after completion of the polls. The petitioner made available a copy of the fax message given by the Mandal Revenue Officer on 17-8-2001 at 15-02 hours after the poll was completed to the Election Observer. The fax message sent by the first respondent to the Election Observer was at about 16. 50 hours and the fax message sent by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer was at 16. 54 hours. It is submitted that all the above fax messages are at variance with each other. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioner that there has been no report whatsoever about the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of the poll. ( 7 ) THE report of the Stage-II Election Officer is rather interesting. A message is sent to the Election Observer as 16. In nutshell, it is the case of the petitioner that there has been no report whatsoever about the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of the poll. ( 7 ) THE report of the Stage-II Election Officer is rather interesting. A message is sent to the Election Observer as 16. 50 hours stating that he received information about the death of a contesting candidate for the post of Sarpanch and 4th Ward by name Satyanarayana at about 5-30 a. m. on 17-8-2001, but no one has given any report about the death as is required under Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules. He proceeded to the house of the deceased candidate and conducted enquiry about the death. He also obtained a report from the son of the deceased candidate at 6-45 a. m. The house of the deceased candidate is about 2 K. Ms. away from the office. It is stated that by 7-15 a. m. the poll had already commenced and he could not present the poll. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer sent a similar report to the Election Observer at 16-54 hours stating that he went to the Election Officer upon receipt of the message about the death of one of the contesting candidates and informed about the same. But he was told by the Election Officer that he had already received the information about the death. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the fact that the fax messages were sent to the authorities concerned after the poll was over itself would show that the contents are manipulated. None of the authorities were aware about the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of the poll. ( 9 ) NO counter affidavits as such are filed by the Election Officer and the District Election Authority though they are impleaded as party respondents. The State Election Commission alone has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State Election Commission, the Secretary of the Commission even received a report about the death of one of the contesting candidates for the office of the Sarpanch at about 9 a. m. on 17-8-2001. The State Election Commission alone has filed a detailed counter-affidavit. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by the State Election Commission, the Secretary of the Commission even received a report about the death of one of the contesting candidates for the office of the Sarpanch at about 9 a. m. on 17-8-2001. The Collector is stated to have informed the State Election Commission that he got the news about the death of one of the contesting candidates only around 8-30 a. m. and by that time polling had already commenced. It is admitted that the Collector was not certain that at what point of time the Election Officer received the information about the death of one of the contesting candidates. The Election Observer is stated to have submitted a report to the effect that the Election Officer received intimation about the death of one of the contesting candidates around 6-15 a. m. The Secretary of the State Election Commission is stated to have received all this information on telephone from the Observer at 12-50 p. m. (noon ). In nutshell, it is sought to be presented as if the Election Officer received the information about the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of the poll. ( 11 ) THERE is no record to ascertain as to exactly at what point of time the Election Officer received the information about the death of one of the contesting candidates. On the basis of the material available on record, it is not possible to hold that the Election Officer received the information about the death of one of the contesting candidates even before the commencement of the poll. Nothing prevented the Election Officer and the District Election Authority or the Mandal Revenue Officer, as the case may be, to immediately report about the death of one of the contesting candidates to the District Election Authority and the Election Commission. The very fact that the fax messages were sent after the polling was completed may lead to an inference that the Election Officer was not aware of the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of poll. An affidavit from the Election Officer perhaps would have made the things clear. The very fact that the fax messages were sent after the polling was completed may lead to an inference that the Election Officer was not aware of the death of one of the contesting candidates before the commencement of poll. An affidavit from the Election Officer perhaps would have made the things clear. ( 12 ) SRI G. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the decision of the State Election Commission directing the Election Officer to countermand the poll under Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules is contrary to law. It is contended that the impugned decision suffers from incurable legal infirmities. It is contended that the State Election Commission in exercise of its power under Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India cannot direct the Election Officer to countermand the poll already held. ( 13 ) THE learned Additional Advocate General and Sri V. V. Prabhakara Rao, learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission contend that the Election Commission is duty bound to issue such directions in exercise of its power under Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India in order to protect the purity of the electoral process and to prevent the illegalities in the matter of conduct of poll. All the elections in the State are to be conducted under the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission. It is well settled and needless to reiterate that the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the statutory provisions and rules in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984) 2 SCC 656 while interpreting Article 324 of the Constitution of India, which confers power on the Election Commission in the matter of superintendence, direction and control of elections and which is analogous to Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India observed and stated the legal and constitutional position thus : (a) when there is no parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said legislation, the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections. (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. (c) where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under Art. 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct of election, and (d) where a particular direction by the Commission is submitted to the Government for approval, as required by the Rules, it is not open to the Commission to go ahead with implementation of it at its own sweet will even if the approval of the Government is not given. ( 14 ) THE Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 while conceding that Art. 324 of the Constitution of India is a plenary provision vesting the whole responsibility of national and state elections and is to be read in the light of the constitutional scheme and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 held that the Commission cannot defy the law armed by Art. 324 and the functions discharged by the Election Commissioner are subject to the norms of fairness. "unchecked power is alien to our system". It is observed that Art. 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the words superintendence, direction and control as well as the conduct of all elections are the broadest terms. Whatever observations made by the Supreme Court while interpreting Art. 324 of the Constitution of India would be equally applicable to the interpretation of Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India. ( 15 ) IT is thus clear that the decision of the State Election Commission is required to be fair, reasonable and in accordance with law. There is nothing like unlimited discretion or jurisdiction conferred upon the State Election Commission though a very wide power is conferred upon the State Election Commission to issue necessary directions to all the concerned entrusted with the duties of the elections to act in conformity with law. There is nothing like unlimited discretion or jurisdiction conferred upon the State Election Commission though a very wide power is conferred upon the State Election Commission to issue necessary directions to all the concerned entrusted with the duties of the elections to act in conformity with law. Such lawful directions and instructions can always be issued by the State Election Commission in exercise of its power of superintendence and control conferred upon it by Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India. But, all such decisions when questioned may have to be decided on the touchstone of well-known principles in Administrative Law. ( 16 ) WE have already noticed the relevant facts. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Election Commission virtually could have directed the Election Officer to countermand the poll after the poll was completed? Whether such a direction could have been issued by the State Election Commission in exercise of its power under Art. 243-K of the Constitution of India? ( 17 ) IT would be appropriate to notice the relevant provision dealing with the countermand of poll. Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules deals with the same and it reads :13. Death of Candidate before Poll :- If a contesting candidate dies and a report of his death is received before commencement of the poll, the Election Officer shall upon being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate, countermand the poll and election proceedings shall be started afresh in all respects as if for a new election : provided that no fresh nomination, shall be necessary in the case of a candidate who stood validly nominated at the time of countermanding of the poll. ( 18 ) A plain reading of the Rule would make it clear that the Election Officer shall countermand the poll on being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate, provided a report of death of one of the contesting candidates is received before commencement of the poll. It is clear from a plain reading of the Rule that the Election Officer is not entitled to countermand the poll even if a contesting candidate dies unless he receives a report about the death of a contesting candidate before commencement of the poll about which he is satisfied. It is clear from a plain reading of the Rule that the Election Officer is not entitled to countermand the poll even if a contesting candidate dies unless he receives a report about the death of a contesting candidate before commencement of the poll about which he is satisfied. The requirement in law is : (A) death of a contesting candidate; (b) a report to that effect received by the Election Officer before commencement of the poll; and (c) the satisfaction of the Election Officer of the fact of the death of the candidate. ( 19 ) THERE can be no countermanding of the election unless all the ingredients are satisfied. The satisfaction of the Election Officer is not something personal in its nature. The satisfaction is to be arrived at by the Election Officer on objective consideration of relevant facts. The Election Officer cannot act on rumours. He has to ascertain the facts, make an appropriate enquiry if necessary and then record his satisfaction about the death of a contesting candidate before the commencement of the poll. The jurisdiction to countermand the poll is exclusively conferred upon the Election Officer. The manner of exercise of that power may be put to a test in a properly constituted proceeding at the instance of an aggrieved person. It is needless to observe that such discretion is required to be exercised fairly and reasonably and in accordance with law. ( 20 ) IT is required to notice that there is no appeal or revision against the decision of the Election Officer taken in purported exercise of the power under Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules provided to the State Election Commission. The State Election Commission did not direct the Election Officer to consider as to whether in the fact situation the poll could be countermanded. The Election Commission virtually entered the shoes of the Election Officer and directed him to countermand the poll. The power conferred upon the Election Officer to countermand the poll is virtually taken over by the Election Commission. The Election Officer is directed to act in a particular manner leaving him with no option but to comply the directions. Such dictation by the State Election Commission to an officer entrusted with the statutory duty is impermissible in law. The power conferred upon the Election Officer to countermand the poll is virtually taken over by the Election Commission. The Election Officer is directed to act in a particular manner leaving him with no option but to comply the directions. Such dictation by the State Election Commission to an officer entrusted with the statutory duty is impermissible in law. ( 21 ) THE Election Officer is a statutory authority in his own right and is required to exercise his discretion under Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules and decide as to whether a situation had arisen for countermanding the poll. The Election Commission in exercise of its power of superintendence and control could have issued instructions general in nature providing permissible guidance to the Election Officers as to how the power conferred upon them to countermand the poll may have to be exercised in a given situation. But the dictation by the State Election Commission to the Election Officer in a particular case would be a clear-cut case of unlawful dictation. ( 22 ) IN the circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 23 ) THE learned standing counsel for the State Election Commission, however, would contend that the order countermanding the poll is an integral part of the electoral process and it can be questioned only in an election petition. It is submitted that it is only a stage in the election process. Any dispute with regard to the postponing or countermanding of the poll is a dispute within the width of expression election . There is no difficulty whatsoever to hold that the decision to countermand the poll is an integral part of the election process. It is a stage in the process of election. The decision, undoubtedly if vitiated, may form the subject matter of an election petition by an aggrieved person. If the Election Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the poll has been wrongly countermanded, it will be entitled to set aside the election on the basis of the fresh poll and may have power to "breath life into the countermanded poll and to make appropriate directions or orders in accordance with law. " But such a situation would arise only if the decision to countermand the poll have been taken by the Election Officer. " But such a situation would arise only if the decision to countermand the poll have been taken by the Election Officer. Such a decision taken by the Election Officer to countermand the poll may be gone into only in a properly constituted election petition. In the instant case, no decision has been taken by the Election Officer to countermand the poll under Rule 13 of the Conduct of Election Rules. May be even a refusal to countermand the poll also amount to a dispute with regard to the election and the correctness of inaction may also be gone into in a properly constituted election petition. ( 24 ) BUT in the instant case, the decision has been taken by the State Election Commission directing the Election Officer to countermand the poll after its completion. Challenge to the said decision will not amount to calling in question the election. It cannot be said that the relief sought for by the petitioner will amount to calling in question the election. ( 25 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons. I am of the considered view that the petitioner is left with no other remedy but to challenge the decision of the State Election Commission by way of filing this writ petition. The writ petition is maintainable. ( 26 ) IT is now well settled that judicial intervention is available if the assistance of the Court is sought for merely for smoothing the progress of the election proceedings and to remove the obstacles therein. The Court cannot exercise its power to interrupt, obstruct or protract the election proceedings. ( 27 ) THE petitioner is seeking appropriate directions to smoothen the process of the election proceedings and to remove the obstacle preventing the final result by the State Election Commission. ( 28 ) FOR all the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the decision of the Election Commission suffers from legal infirmity. It is liable to be set aside. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. ( 29 ) CONSEQUENTLY the respondents are directed to forthwith proceed with the counting of the votes polled in the polling held on 17-8-2001 and declare the result of the election held to the office of the Sarpanch as well as the 4th Ward of Giddalur Gram Panchayat. There shall be an order accordingly. ( 30 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be an order accordingly. ( 30 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.