Judgment :- K.K. SASIDHARAN, J 1. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 11 February, 2008 in W.P.No.34721 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge was pleased to quash the order dated 6 October 2005 on the file of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration and restored the presidentship of the first respondent. The facts:- 2. The appellant was a member of Thovalai Channel Neerieni Payanpuduthuvoor Sangam. The election to the office bearers of the Sangam has to be conducted in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Election Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). Since the appellant was having agricultural land in Kulasekaramputhoor Village, he was eligible to contest the election for the Presidentship of Thovalai Channel Neerieni Payanpuduthuvoor Sangam. The petitioner contested in the election and the other candidate was the first respondent. The petitioner secured 150 votes as against 594 votes secured by the first respondent. Accordingly, the election officer declared the first respondent as President of the Sangam. 3. The election of the first respondent was challenged by the appellant in an Election Petition filed before the District Court, Kanyakumari in Election O.P.No.58 of 2004. Subsequently, he filed a revision petition before the second respondent challenging the election of the first respondent. According to the appellant, the first respondent was not qualified to hold the office of President of Thovalai Channel Neerieni Payanpuduthuvoor Sangam as he was not having the qualification with regard to possession of irrigation land. It was his other contention that incorrect descriptions were given in the nomination form and as such the first respondent played a fraud in getting himself elected. It was his further contention that since the first respondent was disqualified on account of his non-possession of irrigation land in the area, he has to be declared elected as there were only two candidates for the election in question. 4. The second respondent by invoking Section 47 of the Act set aside the election as per order dated 6 October 2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.34721 of 2005. 5. The learned Single Judge opined that the second respondent was not having the authority to take up the election petition. 4. The second respondent by invoking Section 47 of the Act set aside the election as per order dated 6 October 2005. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent filed writ petition in W.P.No.34721 of 2005. 5. The learned Single Judge opined that the second respondent was not having the authority to take up the election petition. According to the learned Judge the revisionary powers of the Commissioner would not enable him to take up election disputes. The learned Judge also considered the merits of the matter and arrived at a factual finding that incorrect description of particulars would not result in rejection of nomination. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. Dissatisfied with the said order, the unsuccessful third respondent in W.P.No.34721 of 2005 has come up with this appeal. Submissions: 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Commissioner was given revisional powers under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 and as such the authority was well within its powers to consider the election dispute. According to the learned counsel, the second respondent would not come under the definition "water user" and as such he was not eligible to hold the post of President. The learned counsel further contended that in the absence of a machinery provided under the Act to decide the election disputes, the unsuccessful candidate has no other remedy than to approach the Commissioner under Section 47 of the Act. 7. The learned counsel for the first respondent justified the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Discussion: 8. The appellant and the first respondent were the members of Thovalai Channel Neerieni Payanpuduthuvoor Sangam. The name of the first respondent was found included in the electoral roll prepared by the competent authority. It is a matter of record that the first respondent secured 594 votes and the appellant was able to secure only 150 votes. It is also admitted that the appellant originally filed an Election Petition before the District Court, Kanyakumari District in Election O.P.No.58 of 2004. We are informed that the election O.P. was later dismissed as "not pressed" and immediately the revision petition was filed. 9. The core question is whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking the revisional powers under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000. The Statute: 10. We are informed that the election O.P. was later dismissed as "not pressed" and immediately the revision petition was filed. 9. The core question is whether the Commissioner was justified in invoking the revisional powers under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000. The Statute: 10. Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 reads thus: "47. The Commissioner may, either on his own motion or on application made, call for and examine the records of any farmers organisation or as the case may be, the records of the Apex Committee in respect of any decision, order, or other proceedings made under this Act, to satisfy himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any such decision or order, or as to the regularity of such proceedings and if, in any case, it appears to the Commissioner that such decision, order or proceedings should be modified, annulled, reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass orders accordingly. Provided that the Commissioner shall not pass any order prejudicial to any person unless he has been given an opportunity of making a representation." 11. Section 47 of Act gives general power of supervision to the Commissioner in respect of any decision, order or other proceedings made under the Act. So it is essentially a supervisory jurisdiction. It is true that the Act and the Rules do not contain a machinery constituted for the purpose of resolution of election disputes. However, it is not as if there is no reference made in the Rules about the election dispute. 12. The election was conducted in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Election Rules, 2003. The election Rules contain detailed provisions as to how the voters list should be prepared, manner of voting, conduct of poll, rejection of ballot papers and disposal of ballot papers. 13. Rule 54(1) deals specifically with the disposal of ballot papers. The said provision reads thus: "54(1) The Returning Officer shall, after declaring the results cause to preserve all the packets of ballot papers, whether counted, rejected or tendered. These packets shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected or produced except under the orders of an authority competent to decide election disputes." 14. Rule 54(1) gives a clear indication that an authority should be constituted to decide election disputes. These packets shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected or produced except under the orders of an authority competent to decide election disputes." 14. Rule 54(1) gives a clear indication that an authority should be constituted to decide election disputes. However no such authority was constituted by the Government. In the absence of a notification constituting the Election Tribunal, it was not open to the Commissioner to exercise the revisional jurisdiction and decide the election disputes. 15. Election Tribunal should be constituted by the Government and only such a Tribunal can decide the election disputes. The Government is given power under Section 50(1) of the Act to make Rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. It was only in exercise of the said power, the Government have framed the Election Rules. Even though detailed procedures were incorporated for the purpose of conducting the election, very strangely no provision was inserted to constitute a machinery to decide the election disputes. The controversy has arisen only because of this. However, that does not mean that the revisional authority, who was not authorised to take up election disputes, could take up such dispute in the absence of a notification constituting the Election Tribunal. 16. The revisional powers given to the Commissioner was for a different purpose. The provision does not deal with election disputes. The election dispute cannot be taken up by an authority unless there is a proper notification appointing him as the competent authority to resolve the dispute. In the absence of any such notification, it was not proper on the part of the Commissioner to assume the jurisdiction to take up the election dispute and decide the same on merits. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in his observation that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to take up the election dispute. It is for the Government to constitute an authority to decide the election dispute invoking its rule making power under Section 50(1) of Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000. 17. Since we are convinced that the Commissioner has no power under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 to decide the election disputes, there is no need to consider the other issues raised by the appellant on merits. 17. Since we are convinced that the Commissioner has no power under Section 47 of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Management of Irrigation Systems Act, 2000 to decide the election disputes, there is no need to consider the other issues raised by the appellant on merits. The learned Single Judge has decided the issue of jurisdiction correctly and no interference is called for in the said order. 18. In the upshot, we dismiss the writ appeal. Consequently the connected MP is closed. No costs