ORDER Heard Sri Subrahmanyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 2. The writ petitioner-P. Jagadamba filed the present writ petition praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001-, dated 20-11-2001 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provision of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made there under and consequently direct the respondents to declare the result of the election held on 17-08-2001 for the Office of Ward Members and Sarpanch of Gorrekal Gram Panchayat on the basis of the result sheet prepared by the 4th respondent and pass such other suitable orders. 3. The respondent No.5 was impleaded as party in W.P.M.P.No.32832 of 2001 by order dated 8-12-2001. 4. The facts in brief are as hereunder: The elections to Gorrekal Gram Panchayat for the posts of Ward Members and Sarpanch were held on 17-8-2001. Three candidates including the petitioner contested for the post of Sarpanch and there was straight contest for the post of 10 Ward Members. The polling was held peacefully from 7.00A.M. up to 1.00 P.M. on 17-08-2001 and the counting started at 2.00 P.M. The counting was completed by 4.00 P.M. It is also stated that the 4th respondent declared the results of the election for the post of Sarpanch and Ward Members and thereafter he was preparing the declaration forms. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that at that juncture the proposed party who came on record as the respondents No.5, Sri V. Hanumanthappa one of the contestants for the post of Sarpanch, who polled 34 votes less than the writ petitioner entered the counting hall along with his supporters and damaged the ballot papers and beat the election staff by scolding them stating that they were responsible for the defeat of the candidate. The 4th respondent managed to come out and went to Alladurg Police Station and gave a report about the incident, which was registered as Crime No.39 of 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 353, 332, 307 read with 1491PC. The 4th respondent also submitted a report on 17 -08-2001 itself to the Mandal Election Officer, Alladurg narrating the incident and also the votes secured by the candidates contested for the post of Sarpanch as well as the Ward Members. The 4th respondent also submitted a report on 17 -08-2001 itself to the Mandal Election Officer, Alladurg narrating the incident and also the votes secured by the candidates contested for the post of Sarpanch as well as the Ward Members. It is mentioned in the said report that the writ petitioner got 886 votes and her nearest rival V. Hanumappa - respondent No.5 secured 852 votes and the third candidate got 11 votes and 38 votes were rejected as invalid. The first respondent in the writ petition on the basis of the report of the second respondent requested the second respondent to get the matter inquired into in detail and submit a report, as the material available was not adequate for taking a decision in the matter. The second respondent appointed the third respondent to enquire into the matter in detail by examining the candidates and others. The second respondent after obtaining the report from the third respondent forwarded the same to the first respondent and the first respondent without properly appreciating various factors and without considering the statements recorded from the various persons by the enquiry officer, set aside the election held on 17-08-2001 and ordered for a fresh poll on 04-12-2001 which is illegal and arbitrary. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that the 4th respondent herein entered the results of the counting on a paper and announced the results, except issuing declaration forms. On the basis of the entries made by him in the paper he gave all the details pertaining to the votes secured by each candidate including the number of invalid votes in the report submitted to the Mandal Election Officer on 17-08-2001 itself. The said report is available with the Officers and on that basis the declaration forms can be issued. The reasoning of the first respondent that the rough result sheet is prepared by the 4th respondent nearly after two months from his memory and it is not desirable to depend upon the same and there is no evidence to support the rough data. These reasons are absolutely without any basis. There is plenty of material available with the authorities with regard to the genuineness of the rough result sheet, which contains the details of all the votes. These reasons are absolutely without any basis. There is plenty of material available with the authorities with regard to the genuineness of the rough result sheet, which contains the details of all the votes. Hence, the order of the 1st respondent dated 20-11-2001 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made there under. It is also stated that the writ petitioner came to know about the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 20-11-2001 only on 26-11-2001 and immediately she filed an application along with his affidavit before the 2nd respondent for supplying of the certified copies of the various references made in the impugned order, for the purpose of taking necessary action and though applied for the same on 27-11-2001, they were not supplied even till the date of filing of the writ petition. In such circumstances, it is stated that the writ petitioner is left with no other option except to approach this Court praying for appropriate relief already referred to supra. 5. The District Collector, Medak filed counter affidavit substantially denying the allegations. Likewise, the respondent No.4 also filed counter affidavit. The respondent No.5 who was impleaded as a party filed an affidavit in detail narrating several facts. CONTENTIONS OF SRI SUBRAMANY AM REDDY: 6. Sri Subrahmanyam Reddy, learned senior counsel representing the writ petitioner would submit that in such a case the first respondent taking a decision to order repoll cannot be sustained for the reason that there is ample material available with the concerned officers and hence, instead of declaring the result ordering repoll is bad. The learned senior counsel also had taken this Court through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the respective counter affidavits and also the order impugned and would submit that even in the light of the language of the relevant provisions of Act and Rules governing the field the impugned order cannot be sustained. The learned senior counsel in all fairness would submit that no doubt the elections relating to the Grampanchayat in question are going to be held within a short time. However, inasmuch as the order impugned is totally an unsustainable order, the matter may be decided on merits by this Court. The learned senior counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. CONTENTIONS OF ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER: 7. However, inasmuch as the order impugned is totally an unsustainable order, the matter may be decided on merits by this Court. The learned senior counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. CONTENTIONS OF ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER: 7. On the contrary, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayatraj would maintain that the present rules governing field are G.O.Ms.No.142 dated 03-05-2001. The learned counsel also would contend that even if the prior rules governing the field are taken in to consideration the remedy in such a case is only by way of election petition and the writ petition cannot be maintained. Even otherwise, the learned counsel would submit that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded inasmuch as the State Election Commission has plenary powers, it cannot be said that such exercise of power ordering the repoll can be said to be without jurisdiction. In any event the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. CONTENTIONS OF SRI SRIDHAR REDDY: 8. Sri Sridhar Reddy, leaned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 had also taken this Court through the affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 and would submit that virtually the writ petition became infructuous, inasmuch as, as per the election notification, the elections of the Gram Panchayats in question also are going to be held within a short time. 9. Heard, the learned counsel on record and perused the material available on record. At the outset it may be convenient to have a glance at the order impugned in the writ petition dated 20-11-2001 in No.1548/SECB2)/2001-3 and the said order reads as hereunder: ORDER: Sub:- Elections to 2nd ordinary Gram Panchayat elections 2001-Gorrekal Gram Panchayat, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District - Repoll- ordered. Ref: 1. Lr. No. H1/4785/2001, dt.18-8-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. 2. Lr. No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001, dt.20-8-2001 from the State Election Commission. 3. Lr. No.1168/2001 /E1-Pts, dt. 7-9-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. 4. Lr. No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001-2, dt. 22-9-2001 from the State Election Commission. 5. Lr. No. 116/2001/E1-Pts dt. 16-10-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. No. H1/4785/2001, dt.18-8-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. 2. Lr. No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001, dt.20-8-2001 from the State Election Commission. 3. Lr. No.1168/2001 /E1-Pts, dt. 7-9-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. 4. Lr. No. 1548/SEC-B2/2001-2, dt. 22-9-2001 from the State Election Commission. 5. Lr. No. 116/2001/E1-Pts dt. 16-10-2001 from the Collector & District Election Authority, Medak. Whereas, the Collector and District Election Authority, Medak at Sanga Reddy (hereinafter in this order referred to as Election Authority), in his letter 1st cited stated that the election of Sarpanch and Members of Gorrekal Gram Panchayat in Alladurg Mandal was the result of election in Form-17, after counting of votes of both ward members and Sarpanch, about 250 persons entered the counting hall, attacked the polling personnel and destroyed the entire polling material, including the polled ballot papers, and the said Election Officer is left with only manuscript of the result of the elections, the details of which he has submitted in writing to the Mandal Development Officer, Alladurg, and mentioning these facts, the District Election Authority sought instructions of the State Election Commission as to the further course of action; AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission in its letter 2nd cited requested the District Election Authority to get the matter enquired into in detail and sent a report, as the material available was not adequate to take a decision; AND WHEREAS, the District Election Authority in the reference 3d cited sent the report of enquiry conducted by the District Co-operative Officer, which states that the Election Officer Stage-II completed the counting of votes relating to the office of Ward Members in the first instance and orally declared the votes obtained by each candidate in each Ward and obtained the signatures of the candidates/counting agents on rough paper without incorporating the same in Form -17 or in Form 18; and also did not publish them on the notice board of the Gram Panchayat; and thereafter he counted the votes relating to the Office of Sarpanch and orally announced the result duly taking the signatures of the counting agents on rough sheets but did not incorporate the same in Form-17 or Form-18; and at that stage about 250 people under the leadership of one Sri V. Hanumappa disputed the fairness of the polling staff, abused them and destroyed all election material, including the polled, counted ballot papers and tabulation sheets; AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission In Its letter 4th cited requested the District Election authority to furnish the information on· the availability of rough sheets containing the votes secured by each candidate for Ward Member and Sarpanch on which the signatures of the counting agents and contesting candidates are reported to have been taken by the Election Officer, Stage-II for taking a decision in the matter; AND WHEREAS, the District Election Authority in the reference 5th cited stated that he got the matter enquired into by the District Co-operative Officer and enclosed his report with the statement of the Election Officer Stage-II; AND WHEREAS, in his statement, the Election Officer, Stage-II stated that the result sheets of the counting that took place on 17-08-2001 were destroyed by the miscreants and no such counting rough sheets signed by the election agents and the contesting candidates are available with him and that he is in possession of only rough result sheet without signatures of the contesting candidates or the election agents; AND WHEREAS, it is seen from the enclosures of the letter 5th cited, that the aforesaid rough result sheet without signatures of the contesting candidates or their agents was signed by the Election Officer on 4-10-2001 from which it can be deduced that even the rough result sheet was prepared from memory and signed on 4-1 0-2001; AND WHEREAS, the State Election Commission is of the opinion, that it is impossible for the Election Officer to remember the votes secured by the 10 Ward Members and the Sarpanch and rep-produce them correctly after nearly two months and it is, therefore, not desirable to depend upon the rough result sheet signed by the Election Officer, Stage-II on 4-10-2001 and that there is no evidence to support the rough data as the polled papers were destroyed; AND WHEREAS, the District Election Authority also stated that the rough sheet enclosed to the report of the District Cooperative Officer appears to have been written and signed by the Election Officer, Stage-II on 4-10-2001 and hence, it may not be advisable to generate Form 17 and 18 on the information available in such a rough sheet; AND WHEREAS, on an over all appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Election Commission is satisfied, that the offence of booth capturing within the meaning of clauses (d) and (e) of the Explanation under Section 224 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, was committed and that taking all material circumstances into account, it is a fit case for declaring the polling which took place on 17-8-2001 for the Office of Ward Members and Sarpanch of Gorrekal Gram Panchayat as void; NOW THEREFORE, the State Election Commissioner, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (Act, 13 of 1994), hereby, declares the poll which took place on 17-8-2001 to the office of Ward Members and Sarpanch of Gorrekal Gram Panchayat, Alladurg Mandal, Medak District, as void and further orders that a fresh poll to the said Gram Panchayat shall be taken on 4-12-2001 from 7.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. and counting of votes shall be taken up from 2.00 P.M. onwards and results declared in accordance with Rule 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 1994. 10. The reasons given by the first respondent appear to be self-explanatory. In the counter affidavits filed by the respective parties, the second respondent had averred in the counter affidavit admitting that the Gram Panchayat elections of Gorrekal was held on 17-08-2001 as per election schedule issued by the State Election Commission. It was also stated by the respondent No.2 that after poll counting was started and completed the counting and when the polling officer was preparing the declaration forms in Forms 17 and 18, untoward incident had taken place in the counting hall. The respondent No.2 also further averred that it is a fact that one of the contesting candidates who secured less votes forcibly entered in to counting hall with his supporters and damaged the ballot papers and torned the declaration and other forms duly beating the polling party. The said fact was reported to police authorities and a criminal case was filed against them. In view of non availability of required documents of results of the election, the Election Officer could not be declared the results officially. The Election Officer had submitted the manuscript of the results of the election without signatures of the agents to the Mandal Parishad Development Officer and District Election Authority seeking clarification. It was also further pleaded by the second respondent in the counter affidavit that the respondent NO.1 directed the 2nd respondent to get the matter enquired into in detail and send a report on 20-8-2001. The District Election Authority had got enquired into the incident and submitted report to the 1st respondent i.e. State Election Commission on 07-09-2001. The Enquiry Officer i.e. District Co-operative Officer reported that the Election Officer Stage II had completed the counting of votes relating to the Ward Members in the first instance and orally declared the votes secured by each contesting candidate and obtained signatures of candidates/counting agents on rough paper, but not incorporated the same in Form 17 or Form 18 and did not publish the same in the notice board. It is also stated that thereafter he counted the votes relating to the Sarpanch and orally announced the results duly taking the signature of the counting agents on rough sheets, but he had not incorporated the same in Form 17 or Form 18, and at that stage one Sri V. Hanmanthappa-respondent No.5 in the writ petition, one of the contesting candidate who secured less votes forcibly entered into the counting hall with 250 supporters abused the polling staff and destroyed all election material including the polled, counted ballot papers along with calculation sheets. In view of destruction of entire polled material with rough sheets, the results could not be published officially. Hence, the first respondent-State Election Commission had ordered fresh poll. It is also stated by the second respondent that the State Election Commission examined the reports submitted by the 2nd respondent and letter of the Stage II Election Officer that the aforesaid result sheet without signatures of the contesting candidates and their agents was signed by the Stage II Election Officer on 04-10-2001. It is further submitted that the State Election Commission i.e. respondent No.1 could not be relied upon the rough result sheet, which was prepared and signed by Stage-II Officer after lapse of two months and there is no other evidence or material to support the rough result sheet data as polled ballot papers were destroyed. As such, the respondent No.1 was satisfied that the offence of booth capturing within the meaning of clauses (d) and (e) of the Explanation under Section 224 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was committed and that taking all election material and the same was destroyed. Certain other facts also had been narrated. 11. Separate counter affidavit was filed by the respondent No.4 who had substantially taken similar stand. It was specifically averred in para 4 of the counter affidavit that at that point of time when the polling Officer was preparing the declaration forms, one of the contesting candidates who secured less votes forcibly entered into the counting hall with his supporters and damaged the ballot papers and torn the declaration forms and other forms duly prepared by the Election Officer and beat the election staff. Several other factual details narrated by the respondent No.2 again had been reiterated in the counter affidavit. Several other factual details narrated by the respondent No.2 again had been reiterated in the counter affidavit. It was also stated by the respondent No.4 that thereafter he counted votes relating to the Sarpanch and orally announced the results duly taking signatures of the contesting candidates/counting agents on a rough sheet, but the same could not incorporated either in Form 17 or 18. Further specific stand was taken that the State Election Commission after going through the entire report ordered for fresh poll and further stand was taken that the said report (sic. poll) was ordered in exercise of powers conferred on the State Election Commission under Section 231 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also in exercise of powers under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India was also pleaded. In the affidavit filed by the party, respondent No.5, who came on record serious allegations made against him in the counter affidavits of the respondents 2 and 4 were avoided, but certain other details had been furnished. 12. In substance this appears to be the factual matrix before this Court. 13. The question that may have to be decided in the present writ petition is that: Whether the first respondent-State Election Commission is justified in ordering the re-poll in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the writ Court is justified in entertaining the writ petition and passing interim order by virtue of which no further elections were said to have been conducted till the fresh election notification was issued especially in view of the stand taken by the other side that even in such a case approaching the Election Tribunal alone is the appropriate remedy and writ petition of this nature cannot be maintained? 14. The relevant provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred as Act for the purpose of convenience), Sections 224 and 231 of the Act read as hereunder: 224. Offence of booth capturing:- Whoever commits an offence of booth capturing shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extent to five thousand rupees. 231. Offence of booth capturing:- Whoever commits an offence of booth capturing shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine which may extent to five thousand rupees. 231. Adjournment of poll or countermanding of election on the ground of booth capturing:- (1) If at any election,- (a) booth capturing has taken place at a polling station or in such number of polling stations as is likely to affect the result of such election or that the result of the poll at that polling station cannot be ascertained; or (b) booth capturing take place in any place for counting of votes in such a manner that the result of the counting at that place cannot be ascertained, the returning officer shall forthwith report the matter to the State Election Commissioner. (2) The Andhra Pradesh State Election Commissioner for Local Bodies 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 be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours, for taking fresh poll at that polling station and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit, or (b) if satisfied that in view of the larger number of polling stations involved in booth capturing the result of the election is likely to be affected or that booth capturing had effected counting of votes in such manner as to effect the result of the election, countermand the election in that constituency. 15. Though it is stated that at present the rules governing the field are G.O.Ms.No.142 at the relevant point of time G.O.Ms.No.755, P.R., R.D., and Relief (MOL-I) Department, dated 30-11-1994, Conduct of Election of Members and Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Members of Mandal Parishad and Members of Zilla Parishad Rules, 1994 were operative. The relevant rules are: Rules 37, 41,42,43, and 45 and the said rules read as under: 37. The relevant rules are: Rules 37, 41,42,43, and 45 and the said rules read as under: 37. Disturbance at the time of counting of votes:- (1) If at any time before the counting of votes is completed and ballot papers used at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll are unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Election Officer or are accidentally or internationally destroyed or lost or are damaged or tampered with, to such an extent that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained, the Election Officer forthwith report the matter to the Election Authority. (2) Thereupon, the Election Authority after taking all material circumstances into account, either- (a) direct that the counting of votes shall be stopped, declare the poll at the polling station or place to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours for taking a fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit, or (b) if satisfied that the result of a fresh poll at that polling station or place will not, in any way, affect the result of the Election, issue such directions to the Election Officer as may deem proper for the resumption and completion of the election and for further conduct and completion of the election in relation to which the votes have been counted. (3) The provisions of these Rules and any rules or orders made there under shall apply to any and every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll. 41. Declaration of Results:- (1) The Election Officer shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 36 in so far as they apply to any particular case: (a) declare in Form 18 the candidate to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given, (to be elected under Rule 43) and send signed copies thereof to the Election Authority and the District Election Authority; and (b) complete to certify, the return of election in Form 17 and send signed copies thereof to the Election Authority and the District Election Authority. (2) Copies of result sheet in form 17 shall be supplied to the contesting candidates on payment of fee as charged for supply of certified copies of other Government records. (2) Copies of result sheet in form 17 shall be supplied to the contesting candidates on payment of fee as charged for supply of certified copies of other Government records. Copies of Form 18 shall also be supplied to the contesting candidate on payment of rupees two for each copy. The District Election Authority, or Election Officer on receipt of an application shall issue the certified copies referred to above. 42. Grant of Election Certificate:- As soon as may be after a candidate has been declared by the Election Officer under Rule 12 or as the case may be under Rule 42 to be elected, the Election Officer shall grant such candidate a certificate of election in Form 19 and obtain from the candidate an acknowledgment of its receipt duly signed by him and immediately send the acknowledgment by registered post to the District Election Authority under intimation to the Election Authority. 43. Publication of Results:- The Election Officer shall public on the notice Board in the office of the Gram Panchayat/Mandal Parishad/Zillaparishad concerned a notification signed by him, stating the name of the candidate duly elected. 45. Adjournment of poll in emergencies:- (1) Where the proceedings at any polling station are seriously interrupted or obstructed by any riot or open violence or otherwise or where a large number of electors are unable to attend the poll at a polling station by reason of an act of God, such as flood or fire, the Polling Officer shall stop the poll, pending receipt of the orders of the District Election Authority. The fact that the poll has been so stopped shall be immediately announced by the Polling Officer to the persons present at the polling stations. (2) Where a polling Officer stops a poll under sub-rule (1) he shall observe the procedure laid down in Rules 30 and 31 and forth with make a full report of the circumstances to the Election Officer, who shall forward the same expeditiously with his remarks thereon, if any, to the Election Authority. (2) Where a polling Officer stops a poll under sub-rule (1) he shall observe the procedure laid down in Rules 30 and 31 and forth with make a full report of the circumstances to the Election Officer, who shall forward the same expeditiously with his remarks thereon, if any, to the Election Authority. (3) The Election Authority shall thereupon order(a) that the poll the continued at the polling station for the number of hours for which it was not held on the previous occasion provided that not less than 50% of the voters has cast their votes; or (b) that the proceedings at the poll held at the polling station on the previous occasion be ignored and that a fresh poll beheld at such polling station for the full number of hours for which it should have been held on the previous occasion. Any order passed by the Election Authority under this sub-rule shall be final. (4) Any order passed under sub-rule (3) shall (a) State (i) the date on which, and the hours between which the continuation poll or the fresh poll, as the case may be, shall be held; and (ii) the date on which and the place and hour at which, the Election Officer, will commence the counting of the votes under Rule 40; and (b) be given wide publicity in the polling area concerned by the Election Officer, in such manner as the District Election Authority may direct, announcing the date, place and hour of polling fixed under clause (a). (5) (a) Where an order is passed under Clause(a) of sub-rule(3) for the continuation of the poll, the Election Officer shall proceed afresh under sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 and return to the Polling Officer appointed under that sub rule all the packets received by him under sub-rule (2) of this rule. (b) The Polling Officer shall open the packets just before commencement of the continuation poll in the presence of such persons as may be present at the polling station, and commence such poll precisely at the hour fixed therefore in the order passed by; the Election Authority under clause(a) of sub-rule (3). (c) At the continuation poll, the Polling Officer shall allow only such electors to vote as did not vote in the previous occasion. (c) At the continuation poll, the Polling Officer shall allow only such electors to vote as did not vote in the previous occasion. (d) The Election Officer shall not count votes cast at such election until such continuation poll or fresh poll has been completed. (e) The Election Officer shall provide the Polling Officer of the polling station, at which such continuation poll is held with the sealed packet containing the marked copy of the electoral roll, ballot boxes and such other material required for the poll. (6) Where an order is passed under clause (b) of sub-rule (3) for holding a fresh poll the Election Officer shall proceed afresh under sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 and a fresh poll shall be held at the polling station concerned in accordance with the provisions of these rules in all respects as it is being held at such polling station for the first time. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, if a candidate dies at any time before orders are passed by the Election Authority under sub-rule (3) or at any time after the passing of such orders but before commencement of the continuation poll, or of the fresh poll, as the case may be, the Election Officer shall upon being satisfied of the fact of the death of the candidate intimate such fact to the Election Authority, stop all further proceedings in connection with the election and start election proceedings afresh in all respects as if for a new election: Provided that no fresh nomination shall be necessary in the case of the remaining candidates who stood nominated at the time when the poll was stopped. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in K. Ramanjaneyulu v. The Stage 2 Officer, Kotanka Grampanchayat and others while dealing with the powers under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India relating to the elections to Panchayats by Election Commissioner held that plenary powers to be exercised in conformity with the provisions of the Act and Rules made there under and the impugned order directing re-poll being in violation of Section 231 of the Act, the same cannot be sustained under Article 243-K of the Constitution of India. 17. 17. Strong reliance was placed on the decision of yet another Division Bench in Rikkala Kanakamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh, through its Secretary, Panchayat Raj Rural Development and Relief (Election III) Department, Hyderabad and others wherein the Division Bench was considering a demand for recounting made and the disturbance and also the interpretation of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 37 of Rules referred to supra and ultimately came to the conclusion that the decision taken by the State Election Commission cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 18. Strong reliance was placed on Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election As already pointed out, it is well-settled that election covers the entire process from the issue of the notification under Section 14, to the declaration of the result under Sec. 66 of the Act. When a poll that has already taken place has been cancelled and afresh poll has been ordered, the order therefore, with the amended date, is passed as an integral part of the electoral process. We are not concerned with the question whether the impugned order is right or wrong or invalid on any account. Even if it is a wrong order it does not cease to be an order passed by a competent authority charged with the conduct of elections with the aim and object of completing the elections. Although that is not always decisive, the impugned order itself shows that if has been passed in the exercise of power under Art. 324 (1) and Section 153 of the Act. That is also the correct position. Such an order, relating, as it does to election within the width of the expression as interpreted by this Court, cannot be questioned except by an election petition under the Act. What do the appellants seek in the writ application? One of their prayers is for declaration of the result on the basis of the poll which has been cancelled. This is nothing short of seeking to establish the validity of a very important stage in the election process, namely, the poll which has taken place and which was countermanded by the impugned order. If the appellants succeed, the result may, if possible, be declared on the basis of that poll, or some other suitable orders may be passed. This is nothing short of seeking to establish the validity of a very important stage in the election process, namely, the poll which has taken place and which was countermanded by the impugned order. If the appellants succeed, the result may, if possible, be declared on the basis of that poll, or some other suitable orders may be passed. If they fail, a fresh poll will take place and the election will be declared on the basis of the fresh poll. This is, in effect, a vital issue which relates to questioning of the election since the election will be complete only after the fresh poll on the basis of which the declaration of the result will be made. In other words, there are no two elections as there is only one continuing process of election. If, therefore, during the process of election, at an intermediate or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law. The appellants, then, will not be without a remedy to question every step in the electoral process and every order that has been passed in the process of the election including the countermanding of the earlier poll. In other words, when the appellants question the election after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, the election court will be able to entertain their objection with regard to the order of the Election Commission countermanding the earlier poll, and the whole matter will be at large. If, for example, the election court comes to the conclusion that the earlier poll has been wrongly cancelled, or the impugned order of the Election Commission is otherwise invalid, it will be entitled to set aside the election on the basis of the fresh poll and will have power to breathe life into the countermanded poll and to make appropriate directions and orders in accordance with law. There is, therefore, no foundation for a grievance that the appellants will be without any remedy if their writ application is dismissed. There is, therefore, no foundation for a grievance that the appellants will be without any remedy if their writ application is dismissed. It has in fact been fairly conceded by counsel for the other side that the election court will be able to grant all appropriate reliefs and that the dismissal of the writ petition not prejudice the appellants. 19. In A.G. Bose v. Sivan Pillaiandothers4 while dealing with Article 324 of the Constitution of India and the powers of the Election Commission the Apex court while summing up at para 25 observed that: To sum up, therefore, the legal and constitutional position is as follows: (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 there under, 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. 20. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Bihar Gensus Employees Welfare Association and others v. Union of India and others" and U.P. Panchayat Raj Act (26 of 1947) and U.P. Panchayat Raj Rules in the case of election and counting certain ballot papers not issued by polling officer were mixed up when electricity went off, ordering of fresh poll by returning officer instead of rejecting such ballot papers held to be illegal. It was also held that mixing of ballot papers not issued by Polling officer, ordering of fresh poll was held to be illegal. It was also held that mixing of ballot papers not issued by Polling officer, ordering of fresh poll was held to be illegal. Further strong reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. SK. Khasim Bee v. State Election Commissioner, Hyderabad and others and also yet another decision in Gangaram v. State Election Commission and others. The learned senior counsel also pointed to para 24 in the decision of Gangaram case7 in particular wherein the Division Bench held that: After the declaration was made by the Presiding Officer, the election of a candidate can only be challenged by an election petition under Section 233 of the Act. The Election Commissioner has no power to interfere with the declaration of a result, whatever be the reason. The power to give directions to the commissioner and the other officers, vested in him by Section 201, was only for the purpose of ensuring efficient conduct of the elections. Once a declaration was made, the election has come to an end and, therefore, the power of superintendence and conduct of the Election Commissioner is not available. Any action initiated by the Election Commissioner to interfere with the result of an election would be in breach of Section 153 and the statutory rules adverted to supra. The legal position in this regard is well settled. In A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (7) AIR 1984 SC 291 at 927 it was held by the Supreme Court, in the context of the exercise of powers by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution. "Where there is an Act and express Rules made there under, 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 statue and Rules) in the matter of superintendence, direction and control as provided by Article 324". The order of the State Election Commissioner dated 27-12-1995 also suffers from another fatal infirmity in that it was passed without notice to Sri Gangaram, the affected candidate, whose election was set aside by that order." 21. The order of the State Election Commissioner dated 27-12-1995 also suffers from another fatal infirmity in that it was passed without notice to Sri Gangaram, the affected candidate, whose election was set aside by that order." 21. Reliance was also placed in Anant Janarda Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, O. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy v. Election Officer Stage II, Giddalur Gram Panchayat and others9 and Amarjit Singh v. Charanjit Singh and others10. 22. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj no doubt placed strong reliance under Rule 37 of the present Rules referred to supra and would maintain that the remedy is only by way of election petition in a matter of this nature. The opening. words of Rule 37 of the Rules 1994 under G.O.Ms. No.755 read: "If at any time before the counting of votes is completed and ballot papers used at a polling station or at a place fixed for the poll are unlawfully taken out of the custody of the Election Officer or are accidentally or internationally destroyed or lost or are damaged or tampered with, to such an extent that the result of the poll at that polling station or place cannot be ascertained, the Election Officer forthwith report the matter to the Election Authority." 23. The learned senior counsel would contend that this is a case falling under the same and hence ordering of re-poll is bad. Sub-rule (2) also may have to be read along with sub-rule (1) of Rule 37. It is specified that thereupon the election authority after taking all material circumstances into consideration either direct that the counting of votes shall be stopped, declare the poll at the polling station or place to be void, appoint a day, and fix the hours for taking a fresh poll at that polling station or place and notify the date so appointed and hours so fixed in such manner as he may deem fit. Rule 37(2)(b) specifies that if satisfied that the result of a fresh poll at that polling station or place will not, in any way, affect the result of the Election, issue such directions to the Election Officer as may deem proper for the resumption and completion of the election and for further conduct and completion of the election in relation to which the votes have . been counted. been counted. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 37 specifies that the provisions of these Rules and any rules or orders made there under shall apply to any and every such fresh poll as they apply to the original poll. Rule 43 dealing with publication of results specifies that the Election Officer shall publish on the notice Board in the office of the Gram Panchayat/Mandal Parishad/Zilla Parishad concerned a notification signed by him, stating the name of the candidate duly elected. It may be appropriate to have a look at Rules 41, 42, and 45 also. In this context, it is no doubt a fortunate case where the unsuccessful candidate having known the result had resorted to certain unlawful acts or illegal acts by entering into the counting hall and disturbing the material. It is also true that though the powers of the Election Commissioner are plenary when specific statutory provisions and rules govern the field, the Election Commission may have to follow the same. There cannot be any two opinions relating to this aspect of the matter. The relevant constitutional provisions governing the field also need not be reiterated again. Be that as it may, there may be some cases where the unsuccessful candidates may create such disturbances only with a view to have ordering of repoll or otherwise to avoid the election. Hence, this Court cautions the Election Commission always to be careful and conscious while analyzing the facts while ordering repoll. 24. Be that as it may, on a careful scrutiny of the impugned order it appears that the first respondent-State Election Commission was satisfied that inasmuch as the forms were not duly signed and the election results had not been declared and from the report submitted since sufficient material was not available to make such declaration, in view of the lapse of time, the first respondent thought it fit to order repoll. In the light of the said reasons recorded, though, on other grounds the repoll is not justified, this Court is of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that the impugned action is one without jurisdiction. But however, this Court again cautions in matter of this nature, the first respondent-Election Commission could have been more careful and cautious while ordering repoll especially keeping in view the peculiar facts in this case. 25. At any rate with the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. But however, this Court again cautions in matter of this nature, the first respondent-Election Commission could have been more careful and cautious while ordering repoll especially keeping in view the peculiar facts in this case. 25. At any rate with the above observations the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.