Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1029 (MAD)

Veeramani v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2006-04-12

A.R.RAMALINGAM, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction dated 26.11.2002 made in S.C.No.116 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur.) A.R. Ramalingam, J. Appellant viz., Veeramani is the first accused before the Trial Court in S.C.No.116 of 2002 with conviction under section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/= and under section 201 IPC and sentence of three years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/=. 2. Brief facts behind this appeal can be stated as follows:- The deceased is the wife of the appellant/A1 and her name is Arasilankumari. Their marriage was conducted about nine years back. After three years of the marriage, the appellant/A1 was having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and in that connection, panchayat was convened in the year 1999 and 2000 at the instance of PW3 Murugesan and others and even then there was no happy and amicable life between the appellant and the deceased Arasilankumari. Further, they were frequently quarreling with each other. While so, in the early morning on 20.1.2000, the appellant with the intention of murdering Arasilankumari, inserted a saree into her mouth and also by using the same saree, strangulated her and caused death of Arasilankumari and thereafter made Arasilankumari to hang upon the rafter of the house to make it appear as if Arasilankumari herself committed suicide by hanging to screen the offence committed by the appellant. Thereupon, on information and knowledge about the occurrence, PW1 viz., Dharmalingam, father of Arasilankumari, PW2 viz., Paramasivam, the paternal uncle''s son of PW1, PW3 Murugesan who was using to conduct panchayat and mediation between the husband and wife, PW4 Rathnammal, junior paternal aunt of the deceased Arasilankumari, PW5 Mohan relative of the deceased Arasilankumari came to the house of the appellant. On enquiry about the occurrence made by P.Ws.1 to 3, the appellant/A1 gave extra judicial confession to them to the effect that it is he who caused the death of his wife Arasilankumari and made her to hang upon the rafter to make it appear as suicide. Thereupon, PW7 Annadurai and other witnesses came there. On enquiry about the occurrence made by P.Ws.1 to 3, the appellant/A1 gave extra judicial confession to them to the effect that it is he who caused the death of his wife Arasilankumari and made her to hang upon the rafter to make it appear as suicide. Thereupon, PW7 Annadurai and other witnesses came there. PW1 went to the police station and gave complaint marked as Ex.P1 at about 10.00 am and based upon the complaint, this case was registered by PW13 viz., Shanmugam, Sub Inspector of Police of Padalur Police Station and prepared the printed FIR marked as Ex.P14 and also arrested the appellant as well as other two accused viz., his parents. Thereafter, PW12, Inspector of Police viz., Murugesan, on receipt of information about the registration of this case, came to Padalur Police Station and received the FIR and proceeded to the appellant''s house and prepared observation mahazar marked as Ex.P3 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P8 and conducted inquest upon the dead body of Arasilankumari in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report marked as Ex.P9 and sent the body for post mortem through the Constable viz., PW11 Periyasamy and examined some witnesses and made arrangements for taking photograph with the help of photographer viz., PW9 Rajesh Kumar and recovered M.Os. 2 to 9 from the dead body and sent them to the Magistrate along with the requisition for sending them for chemical analysis. PW10, Dr.Mathialagan conducted post mortem upon the dead body of Arasilankumari and furnished post mortem report Ex.P5 along with his opinion that the said Arasilankumari should have died due to asphyxia. In continuation, he also examined some more witnesses and sent the requisition for sending the hyoid bone and viscera for chemical analysis and recovered the panchayat muchalika given by panchayatdars. Thereafter, PW14 another Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and also examined PW10 Dr.Mathialagan who conducted post mortem. Following that PW15, another Inspector of Police viz., Kannan completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant as well as other accused, viz., his parents. 3. Thereafter, PW14 another Inspector of Police conducted further investigation and also examined PW10 Dr.Mathialagan who conducted post mortem. Following that PW15, another Inspector of Police viz., Kannan completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant as well as other accused, viz., his parents. 3. During the course of trial, the Trial Court, after examining P.Ws.1 to 15 and marking of Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1 to 9, examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., but, the accused denied their complicity in the offence and the appellant has stated that his wife Arasilankumari committed suicide by hanging in his house and however, the father of the deceased Arasilankumari and her relatives have implicated him and his parents falsely in this case and pleaded innocence. 4. After analysing the available evidence and other materials, the Trial Court has found and come to the conclusion that the appellant/A1 has committed the offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and convicted him thereunder after acquitting the other two accused. Such conviction and sentence is the subject matter of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/A1, after taking us through the entire evidence, contended that it is a case of suicide only and such suicide has been twisted as if the appellant has murdered his wife Arasilankumari by P.Ws.1 and 2, close relatives of Arasilankumari and PW3 Panchayatdar and others and himself and his parents have been implicated falsely in this case and that P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested for the prosecution since they are close relatives of the deceased Arasilankumari and the appellant did not give any extra judicial confession to anybody much less P.Ws.1 to 3 and the medical evidence also does not indicate conclusively that the death of Arasilankumari can be only due to murder through asphyxia at the instance of the appellant and thereby there is every doubt to suspect that it could be suicide and thereby the appellant is entitled to get acquittal on benefit of doubt. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. According to the prosecution, the death of Arasilankumari, wife of the appellant is only due to asphyxia committed by the appellant and on the other hand, as per the defence, it is only a suicide at the instance of the deceased Arasilankumari alone and it is not a case of murder. 6. According to the prosecution, the death of Arasilankumari, wife of the appellant is only due to asphyxia committed by the appellant and on the other hand, as per the defence, it is only a suicide at the instance of the deceased Arasilankumari alone and it is not a case of murder. However, on going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, father and cousin brother of the deceased Arasilankumari, it is seen that as soon as they arrived at the occurrence house and after seeing the dead body hanging in the rafter with saree around the neck and inside the mouth, they got suspicion that it could not be a suicide and on enquiry, the appellant has confessed before them that it is he who strangulated by pressing the neck and made her to die and then managed to put the body in the rafter for the purpose of making to appear as if it is a suicide. Apart from the confession before P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant has also confessed before PW3 viz., Murugesan who is a well wisher and mediator and independent witness, to the effect that it is he who caused the death of Arasilankumari by pressing her neck and then put the body in a hanging position to make it appear as if it is a suicide. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and particularly the evidence of independent and well wisher of the appellant also indicates that it is the appellant alone who caused the death of Arasilankumari. There is no necessity or compulsion on the part of PW3 Natesan who is a Councilor and panchayatdar and well wisher upon the amicable and happy life of the appellant and his wife Arasilankumari to give evidence falsely against the appellant as if he confessed that he alone caused the death. 7. PW4 also has given evidence categorically to the effect that the appellant was torturing the deceased Arasilankumari by having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and there was mediation and panchayat for amicable life and thereby indicating that there was continuous misunderstanding and frequent quarrels between the appellant and his deceased wife Arasilankumari. 8. 7. PW4 also has given evidence categorically to the effect that the appellant was torturing the deceased Arasilankumari by having illicit intimacy with one Jayalakshmi and there was mediation and panchayat for amicable life and thereby indicating that there was continuous misunderstanding and frequent quarrels between the appellant and his deceased wife Arasilankumari. 8. It is also an important fact to note that the body was hanging in the rafter in a way the knees to touch the floor and hands and legs tied and particularly saree inserted in the mouth and tied around the neck. In other words, the photograph of the body taken by PW9 clearly goes to indicate that in such a position and in the practical approach, Arasilankumari could not have died by hanging herself. Even otherwise, there is no necessity for insertion of saree into her mouth if really she had committed suicide by hanging and also for tying her legs. 9. No doubt the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that death could be due to partial hanging as per Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and so, the knees touching the floor cannot be an obstruction for hanging herself. However, such contention of the appellant''s counsel cannot be accepted or believed inasmuch as the position of the body as such with hands and legs tied and saree inserted into the mouth as if it is a clear suicide. On the other hand, the appearance of the body in the photograph and extra judicial confession of the appellant to P.Ws.1 to 3 and ever long misunderstanding and quarrel between the husband and wife and the conduct of the appellant in having illicit intimacy with another lady Jayalakshmi, altogether, in our view, clearly indicate that it is nothing but a murder at the instance of the appellant and there cannot be any question of suicide. 10. It is quite natural and reasonable that as soon as the relatives of Arasilankumari and neighbours and other people assembled in the house of the appellant and on enquiry by them, the appellant without any other go readily came forward to confess his act of causing death and then putting the body in a hanging position to show as if it is a suicide. So, it is too much on the part of the appellant and his counsel to say as if the death of Arasilankumari is a suicide and her husband the appellant is innocent. 11. The cumulative effect of all the above observed aspects, in our view, clearly goes to show that it is nothing but a murder at the instance of the appellant and thereby he is liable for conviction under section 302 and 201 IPC and this appeal has no merits and it deserves to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, in the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the Trial Court is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to enable him to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 48. It is no doubt true that the Election Commission requires personnel for smooth holding of election and even in a given situation it should have ample authority in the matters relating to law and order. However, the period commencing from the date of notification cannot be said to be insufficient period for pursuing the aforesaid goal of the Election Commission. 49. The Statement of objects and reasons for introducing various amendments, including Section 13CC and 28A, are required to be noticed. So far as Sections 13CC and 28A are concerned, paragraph 5(i) is relevant and extracted hereunder :- 5. The proposals contained in the present Bill are briefly explained below:- (i) At present, all the work relating to the preparation, revision and correction of the electoral rolls and the actual conduct of elections, is carried out by the designated officers of the State Governments concerned. It is felt that the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in this regard should be clearly defined so that during the relevant period, these officers would, while discharging functions relating to elections, be under the control, superintendence and discipline of the Election Commission.” 50. Learned counsel for the Election Commission and Mr. Learned counsel for the Election Commission and Mr. Santhi Bushan have contended that when the election date has been declared, any statement, which is likely to sway the opinion of the voters should be avoided by the public servants and to prevent any such misgiving, the Commission is well justified in issuing the order of transfer as otherwise a free and fair election may not be possible under such contingencies, particularly when a public servant making such statement is holding any post. 51. In our considered opinion, if such a submission is accepted and taken to its logical end, the Election Commission can issue direction disapproving any of the policy decision of a particular Government or create hurdles in the running of the day-to-day administration on the ground that ultimately where the election would be held after the normal gap of about 5 years, there may not be free and fair election as the opinion of the public may be swayed by any particular policy. It is an open secret that some of the policy decisions of any particular Government at times may give the impression as if such decisions are made with “ half an eye” on the election or in other words with a view to sway public opinion in favour of a particular party. Since election is inevitable at least once in every five years, the Election Commission can always say that particular policy should not be implemented by invoking jurisdiction under Article 324(1) of the Constitution. We are not convinced that Article 324(1) was intended to convert the Election Commission to an “imperium in imperio”. 52. It is submitted that even though in a technical sense election process can be said to begin with issuance of notification under Section 15 of the R.P. Act, 1951, yet there are other stages preceding before such issuance of notification which can be construed as stages relatable to “ election” in a wider sense. There cannot be any serious quarrel over this proposition. As is seen from the provisions contained in the R.P. Act, there are certain exercises undertaken such as preparation and correction of voter list, which obviously relate to the period prior to issuance of notification under Section 15. The provisions contained in R.P. Act, 1950, including Section 13CC, take care of such situation. As is seen from the provisions contained in the R.P. Act, there are certain exercises undertaken such as preparation and correction of voter list, which obviously relate to the period prior to issuance of notification under Section 15. The provisions contained in R.P. Act, 1950, including Section 13CC, take care of such situation. Even it can be accepted that the Model Code of Conduct becomes enforceable from an anterior date i.e, from the date of declaration by the Election Commission even before formal issuance of notification under Section 15. If there is any violation of the Model Code of Conduct, thereafter it may be open to the Election Commission to take appropriate action as contemplated either under the Model Code of Conduct or under any allied provision or order which empowers the Election Commission to take such action. The consequences envisaged under Section 28A of the R.P. Act, 1951 are available only on the issuance of notification. Similarly, as contemplated under Sections 126 and 135C of the R.P. Act, 1951 , the ban relating to holding of public meeting or sale of liquor became effective during the period of 48 hours prior to the time of conclusion of the poll and the consequences are envisaged in such provisions. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission to the effect that the consequence envisaged under Section 28A is only confined to particular period and, therefore, the Election Commission can also exercise effective control such as transfer of unwanted officer during the other period as such a situation is not contemplated under the R.P. Act, is not acceptable as it would convert the Election Commission to an imperium in imperio. If this logic is accepted, it can as well be contended that the Election Commission in its discretion can extend the period of ban contemplated under Sections 126 and 135C of the R.P. Act, 1951 on the ground that such ban would be more conducive for a fair election. When specific provisions have been made, it is obvious that the Election Commission cannot fall back on its plenary power under Article 324(1) or 324(6) as such jurisdiction has to be read along with other provisions of the Constitution including any provision contained in the R.P. Act, 1950 and the R.P. Act, 1951, as categorically held in several cases, including Mohinder Singh Gill's case and A.C. Jose case. If such a contention is accepted, it would be obviously have the effect of amending or enlarging the scope of Section 28A or Section 126 or Section 135C of the R.P. Act, 1951. 53. Learned counsel appearing for the Election Commission has placed strong reliance upon Communication No.437/6/2006-PLN III (Vol-IV) dated 19.12.2005 issued by the Election Commission to the Chief Secretaries of 5 States / Union Territory, including Tamil Nadu, where elections are to be held in 2006. It has framed certain guidelines regarding posting of various officers connected with the Elections and issued instruction regarding transfer of the officials. It is stated by the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission that no objection had been raised by the Tamil Nadu regarding enforcement of such instructions and the very fact that the Government had come forward to protest against the order regarding transfer of Police Commissioner, who is holding a key post itself, is suggestive of the fact that the party in power, which is obviously looking forward to the election, considers the retention of the Officer at Chennai essential for furtherance of its election prospects. We do not think that the learned Senior Counsel for the Election Commission is justified in making such a sweeping submission merely because the State Government has come forward to file the writ petition challenging the order of transfer. The question raised relates to an important facet of delineation of the extent of respective jurisdiction of the Election Committee vis-a-vis the State Government and need not be perceived as an attempt on the part of the State Government to hang on to a particular officer. The reasons given in the letter of the Chief Secretary dated 14.3.2006 cannot be said to be totally out of place deserving a rather dismissive reply. 54. Learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the order has been passed without following the principles of natural justice. The power sought to be exercised is more or less an administrative power and it cannot be said that such a direction regarding transfer is required to be made only after compliance with the principles of natural justice. However, as already noticed, many of the provisions contained in both the Acts relating to posting of electoral officials envisage consultation with the State Government. However, as already noticed, many of the provisions contained in both the Acts relating to posting of electoral officials envisage consultation with the State Government. Therefore, it would be always more appropriate for the Election Commission to take the concerned Government into confidence in a particular case instead of trying to pass an order as if it is a big brother. Similarly, even where the direction issued by the Commission, as in the present case, may not be strictly coming within the jurisdiction of Article 32 4(1) or the provisions contained in various Acts, the State Government can always consider such direction as a request or advice to be acted upon appropriately. The Government is also required to ponder if such a request would come after notification is issued, the State may not be in a position to resist such a request. Therefore, matters can always be finalised between the two Constitutional functionaries on the basis of mutual respect and confidence rather than in the spirit of imposition and conflict. 55. Mr.N. Jothi, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.8032 of 200 6, has submitted that the order of transfer in the peculiar background, should not have been passed merely at the behest of the intervenor A. Raja, who happens to be a Minister of the Central Government, even without calling for any comments from the State Government and the police officer concerned. He has further submitted that as per the own decision of the Election Commission dated 28.3.1994, available at Page No.2.837 of Manual of Election Laws by Bahri, any person who is transferred on the basis of perceived notion of the Election Commission regarding any violation is stigmatized and as per the notification of the Election Commission he cannot be given any election duty in future. Such order is extracted hereunder :- Election Commission's Orders on Conduct of Free and Fair Elections. “I. Appointments of Election Staff and Disciplinary Control No.10 0/94-PS-1 dated 28th March 1994. 4. Commission hereby directs that any official against whom any disciplinary action was taken under section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and section 28A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 during earlier general or bye-elections shall not be drafted for any election related work whatsoever during ensuing elections to Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies. Commission hereby further directs that such officials, if any, should be replaced forthwith. Commission hereby further directs that such officials, if any, should be replaced forthwith. Your proposal for their immediate replacement shall be sent to commission for its approval after selecting a suitable substitute with proven record of dedication and fairplay. In no case any official against whom action has been taken under section 13CC or section 28A should handle election related work.” 56. It is of course true that in the counter affidavit of the Election Commission it has been indicated as if the impugned direction has been issued by virtue of exercise of power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with 13CC of the R.P. Act, 1950. However, as already analysed and practically conceded by the learned counsel for the Election Commission and all the intervenors, Section 13CC of the R.P. Act, 1951 is not applicable. Therefore, it cannot be said that this direction of the Election Commission operates as a stigma requiring any compliance with the principles of natural justice, so far as the officer is concerned. 57. Even though it may not be held that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed while issuing direction regarding transfer, keeping in view the various provisions contained in the R. P. Act, 1950 and R.P. Act, 1951, which specifically envisage consultation with the State Government by the Election Commission relating to posting of particular officials, it would have been more appropriate on the part of the Election Commission to have consulted the State Government in this case. In the present case, the reply given by the Chief Secretary deserved a better treatment rather than being rejected in a curt manner, more particularly keeping in view the fact that one was representing the State Administration and the other is a high Constitutional authority. 58. In the present case, the reply given by the Chief Secretary deserved a better treatment rather than being rejected in a curt manner, more particularly keeping in view the fact that one was representing the State Administration and the other is a high Constitutional authority. 58. So far as his contention that the Election Commission should not have acted merely on the basis of the allegation made by the Minister of the Central Government without trying to ascertain the background in which the alleged statement is made, it was stated by the counsel for the Election Commission that, as a matter of fact, the comment on the basis of which direction was issued, was published in Chennai Chronicle on the basis of which direction was issued as the Commission felt that continuance of the police officer shall not be conducive to the conduct of fair and free election, was in fact received by the Commission on 13.3.2006 as indicated in the counter affidavit, whereas the Minister has written the letter to the Commission only on 14.3.2006, which was in fact received by the Commission ion 16.3.2006. It is therefore submitted by him that the assertion of the petitioner in W.P.NO.8032 of 2006, namely, Thiru. Lakshmi Narayanan, is factually incorrect. Even though in the counter affidavit this position has not been clearly spelt out, the learned counsel for the Election Commission has circulated some of the official papers which prima facie indicate that the copy of the Chennai Chronicle containing various statements made by various personalities, including the Police Commissioner, was received in the Election Commission's office on 13.3.2006. However, the file produced does not indicate the identity of the person who has sent such copy nor does it indicate as to the method in which it was received, i.e., by post or by hand delivery. It may however be indicated that in an additional affidavit filed on 27.3.2006, on which date the hearing was concluded, it has been stated that the concerned newspaper report had been received by the Election Commission from two persons including one from the Chief Electoral Officer on 13.3.2006 itself. However, since the Election Commission has suo motu jurisdiction to act in such matters, it is immaterial as to how the matter is brought to the notice of the Election Commission. However, since the Election Commission has suo motu jurisdiction to act in such matters, it is immaterial as to how the matter is brought to the notice of the Election Commission. Even though the Election Commission in its affidavits could have been more forthcoming by giving the details regarding such communication and the manner in which it was received, in the absence of any specific assertion that the Election Commission has abdicated its discretion being pressurised by any Minister, it is not necessary to delve further in such matter. 59. Mr. Jothi has also contended that the past experience indicates that lot of controversies are raised regarding the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct and the consequences, and the Commission is passing adhoc orders from time to time without any consistent stand which gives scope for apprehension in the minds of different political parties and personalities. It is therefore submitted by him that instead of acting in such manner it would be always more appropriate for the Commission to seek framing of appropriate statutory Rules. 60. It is not for this Court to come to any particular conclusion on this submission as in our opinion such matter should be best left to the discretion of the Commission to consider as to whether detailed statutory rules can be framed with a view to avoid unnecessary controversies n future. 61. Learned counsels appearing for the parties who have challenged the order of the Commission have stated almost in one voice that the remark of the Police Commissioner reported in Chennai Chronicle has been grossly overblown regarding possible impact on the election. It has been submitted and, in our view, not entirely without some justification that the statement made in the context of International Women's day does not even remotely suggest anything regarding the election and a mountain should not have been made out of a mole-hill. Mr. Shanti Bushan appearing for the Intervenor Mr.A. Raja on the other hand has submitted that since the Police Commissioner is occupying an important and sensitive post, his statement is very likely to cause apprehension in the minds of many and likely to influence the opinion of a voter. Mr. Shanti Bushan appearing for the Intervenor Mr.A. Raja on the other hand has submitted that since the Police Commissioner is occupying an important and sensitive post, his statement is very likely to cause apprehension in the minds of many and likely to influence the opinion of a voter. Learned counsel for the Commission has submitted that the Commission in its own wisdom thought that such statement was likely to impair the fair election and it is not for this Court to substitute its opinion and the subjective opinion of the Commission cannot be tested in an objective manner by a Court. 62. Even though there appears to be some justification in the submission made by the petitioners that the matter has been unnecessarily blown out of proportion, yet keeping in view the restricted scope of interference by the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in such matters, we are not able to persuade ourselves to come to a definite conclusion that the order of the Commission was based entirely on irrelevant consideration. Whether the statement was intended to influence or sway any voter or not, there was a slim possibility of such statement being misconstrued. The Police Commissioner possibly could have been a little more circumspective before making any statement which was likely to raise eyebrows or at least a flutter. 63. In course of hearing, learned counsels appearing for the Election Commission as well as the intervenors, who are supporting the Election Commission, had raised a question regarding maintainability of the three writ petitions filed by the three retired Director General of Police. It has been contended by them that the question relating to transfer cannot be raised by way of any public interest litigation. It is also contended that at any rate the three petitioners, namely, the three former Directors General of Police, do not have enough credential to file any public interest litigation in the matter and as such have no locus standi to file such writ petitions. 64. The right of the State Government to file the writ petition is not in question, even though questions have been raised regarding motive of the State Government in filing of such writ petition. 64. The right of the State Government to file the writ petition is not in question, even though questions have been raised regarding motive of the State Government in filing of such writ petition. Since the questions raised are common in the writ petition filed by the State as well as the three writ petitions filed by the three former Directors General of Police and since the writ petition filed by the State Government is otherwise maintainable, it is not necessary to consider specifically this aspect of the matter. Similarly, the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Thiru. Adaikalam to enforce the order passed by the Election Commission may be in doubt, but it is not necessary to be decided in the present case. All these questions are left open to be decided in future if and when such occasion arises. 65. Mr.R. Viduthalai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.A. Raja in W.P.No.8126 of 2006, while supplementing the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shanthi Bushan, has also raised the question of maintainability of the writ petitions on the anvil of the decision of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case. He has contended that the question relating to validity of transfer of a police officer belonging to Indian Police Service can be raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal and not directly before the High Court and only when the matter is decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, a writ petition can be filed against such decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the writ petitions filed either by the State Government or by the three former Directors General of Police are not maintainable. 66. In our considered opinion, there is a short, but not necessarily sweet answer to this. The question in issue in the present case is not regarding transfer of any official as such, but regarding jurisdiction of the Election Commission to issue any direction regarding transfer of an officer. What is in issue in the present case is the legality or validity of the direction issued by the Election Commission and not the legality or the validity of any transfer order as such. As a matter of fact, transfer order, if any, is to be passed by the State Government and no transfer order has been passed as yet. What is in issue in the present case is the legality or validity of the direction issued by the Election Commission and not the legality or the validity of any transfer order as such. As a matter of fact, transfer order, if any, is to be passed by the State Government and no transfer order has been passed as yet. Moreover, the direction is being challenged by the State Government and not by the officer concerned. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the question could have been raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The observation made by Justice K.G. Balakrishnan of the Kerala High Court, as His Lordship then was, in 1995 Labour I.C 682 (cited supra) repelling a similar contention in that case is appropriate. 67. Mr. Elephant Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, namely, Nagaimugan, has relied upon the decisions of Allahabad High Court in AIR 2002 ALL 73 (Lalji Shukakla & Another V. Election Commission Of India And Another). The order of transfer as such was in question by the concerned transferred officer in such case. The question now raised regarding the authority of the Election Commission vis-a-vis that of the State Government regarding control to be exercised over a particular officer even before issuance of notification under Section 15 of the R.P. Act, 1951 was not in issue in any of these cases. This case is clearly distinguishable. 68. For the aforesaid reasons, we come to the following conclusions :- The impugned communication dated 14.3.2006 and the consequential communication dated 16.3.2006 need not be considered as a binding direction to the State Government under Article 324 of the Constitution or under Section 13CC of the R.P. Act, 1950 or Section 28A of the R.P. Act, 1951. However, notwithstanding the above conclusion, since the Election Commission will get ample power to issue such direction regarding transfer of a designated police official after publication of the notification under Section 15 of the R.P. Act, 1951, it would be open to the State Government to take appropriate decision in the matter in further consultation with the Election Commission. In this connection, it would be appropriate to recall the sentiments expressed by Justice D. Raju, while speaking for the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.756 & 757 of 1995, to the following effect :- “... In this connection, it would be appropriate to recall the sentiments expressed by Justice D. Raju, while speaking for the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.756 & 757 of 1995, to the following effect :- “... But, at the same time, we do make it clear that the State Government also must be alive to its responsibilities and obligations to assist the Election Commission in all respects, act with great care, caution and circumspection depending upon the practicalities of the situation and adopt a pragmatic path...” . We may also add that even though under law it may not be obligatory on the part of the Election Commission to comply with the principles of natural justice while directing transfer of a particular officer the provisions contained in R.P. Act, 1950 or R.P. Act, 1951 regarding consultation with State Government in the matters relating to nominating various State officials as Chief Electoral Officer, District Election Officer, etc., should not be lost sight of and the Election Commission should develop a healthy convention of taking the concerned State Government into confidence rather than issuing “ diktat” in the matters relating to transfer of key officials. It should not be forgotten that the Election Commission and the State Government are two high Constitutional functionaries and not petty officers quibbling over small matters. 69. In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed of, subject to the observations made earlier in the judgment and the directions contained in the preceding paragraph. There would be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected WPMPs are closed.