JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Learned Advocate General, under instructions, states that the State within reasonable time, in letter and spirit, shall implement the impugned judgment dated 15th December, 2016, passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.4508 of 2015, titled as Dr.Sushant Deshta vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. In this view of the matter, we could have conveniently disposed of the present appeal. However, one issue of significance and public importance arises for consideration and that being in relation to the efficacy of interim order dated 2nd January, 2016, passed in the writ proceedings (Division Bench) to the following effect:- “……. The moot question is whether any interim relief can be granted at this stage. We have prima facie gone through the averments contained in the writ petition and the reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2, and are of the view not to grant any interim relief at this stage, in the interest of public. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by providing that the election process be taken to its logical end but final result be not declared so far as it relates to the subject matter of the writ petition, till the next date of hearing.” (emphasis supplied) 3. A bare reading of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the issue of declaration of results of the elections so held to the Zila Parishad. 4. It is not in dispute that elections for Zila Parishad, Shimla, were held in January 2016. It is also not in dispute that save and except for one ward, pertaining to which the issue of delimitation came to be agitated by the private respondents, results for the entire constituency already stand declared by the appropriate Authority. Consequently, except for one ward, the democratic process of representation to the Panchayati Raj Institutions i.e. Zila Parishad stands completed in every respect. 5. We are called upon to consider as to whether it is open for the State/Authorities to declare the result for the said ward or not. One way of looking at it is that interim order dated 2nd January, 2016, even though passed by the Division Bench, having merged with the decision in the writ petition, so decided by the learned Single Judge. No further orders are required to be passed, for it to have eclipsed. One way of looking at it is that interim order dated 2nd January, 2016, even though passed by the Division Bench, having merged with the decision in the writ petition, so decided by the learned Single Judge. No further orders are required to be passed, for it to have eclipsed. [Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, AIR 1964 SC 993 , (para-13); Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow vs. Ved Prakash, AIR 1976 All 264 ; and Ramesh Akre and others vs. Mangalabai Pralhad Akre and others, AIR 2002 Bombay 487 (paras 21, 22 and 23]. However, the other way of looking at it is that the democratic will, so enshrined in our Constitution (Article 243Z), must prevail. No doubt, Mr.B.C. Negi, learned Senior Counsel, while canvassing that purity of election must prevail, inasmuch as, while suggesting that in fact fresh elections should be held after the process of delimitation is carried out in terms of the judgment, invites out attention to the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Satya Narain vs. Dhuja Ram and others, (1974) 4 SCC 237 and Election Commission of India through Secretary vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 SCC 216 . 6. Having carefully gone through the same, we find the Apex Court to have only emphasized the need of speedy and expeditious trial of election disputes in Satya Narain’s case (supra). In fact, to the contrary, we find the Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India (supra), to have observed as under:- “28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the court by the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.” 7. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of overenthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.” 7. At this juncture, we only notice the decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Pawan Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2011(2) I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana, 328, to which our attention is invited by the learned Advocate General wherein, the Court observed as under: “20. In view of what has been said above, these writ petitions have to be allowed. However, the question arises as to whether the entire exercise of elections to the posts of Sarpanch which has been recently concluded by electing 6083 Sarpanches has to be set as naught. The principles of prospective operation of the law laid down in the judgment reported as Yogendra Pal and others versus Municipality, Rohtak, (1994) 5 S.C.C. 709 is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following terms:- “……It is now well-settled by the decisions of this Court beginning with I.C. Golak Nath versus State of Punjab that the Court can mould the relief to meet the exigencies of the circumstances and also make the law laid down by it prospective in operation. We are informed that till date the Municipal Committees in both Punjab and Haryana States have similarly acquired lands for their respective town planning schemes and in many cases the schemes have also been completed. It is only some of the landowners who had approached the courts and the decisions of the courts have become final in many of those cases. It would not, therefore, be in the public interest to unsettle the settled state of affairs. It would create total chaos and an unmanageable situation for the Municipal Committees if the said provisions of the respective statutes and the land acquisitions made thereunder are declared void with retrospective effect. We, therefore, propose to declare that the provisions concerned of the two enactments would be void from the date of this decision.” (21) In view of the above statement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in our considered opinion setting aside the elections of 6083 Sarpanches may not be the appropriate consequential direction. We, therefore, propose to declare that the provisions concerned of the two enactments would be void from the date of this decision.” (21) In view of the above statement of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in our considered opinion setting aside the elections of 6083 Sarpanches may not be the appropriate consequential direction. While we have clarified the position in law as above, yet setting at naught the entire election at this stage would result in avoidable upheaval and huge administrative expenditure by unseating democratically elected Sarpanches. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the successful candidates in such cases have a popular mandate. Since rotation is a continuous process, it would be appropriate if the interpretation we have given is brought into force from the next Panchayat elections.” 8. We are conscious of the fact that save and except for one ward, the process for election stands completed and the electorate are being represented by their respective elected representatives. It is in this backdrop, we find the need and necessity of interpreting interim order dated 2nd January, 2016, to mean that it shall be open for the Authorities to open the ballet boxes and declare the result, in accordance with law. The Apex Court has emphasized the significance, importance and need of upholding the democratic process. A balance between private and public interest needs to be maintained. In the given circumstances, we find overwhelming public interest to prevail over the private interest of the writ petitioners, who, no doubt, had been agitating the issue before the relevant Authorities much prior to the initiation of election process, but then, the fact of the matter being that a duly elected body must be allowed to function, in letter and spirit within the constitutional scheme. No area can be left unrepresented for an unending and uncertain period. We also take notice of the fact that implementation of the judgment would, in itself take some time. In fact, in undertaking such process, certain wards would require to be rearranged and reorganized. Democratically elected body is necessarily required to be made functional. 9. The apex court in In the matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), (2002) 8 SCC 237 has observed as under: “151. The impossibility of holding the election is not a factor against the Election commission. Democratically elected body is necessarily required to be made functional. 9. The apex court in In the matter of Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), (2002) 8 SCC 237 has observed as under: “151. The impossibility of holding the election is not a factor against the Election commission. The maxim of law impotentia exusat legem is intimately connected with another maxim of law /ex non cogit ad impossibilia. Impotentia excusat legem is that when there is a necessary or invincible disability to perform the mandatory part of the law that impotentia excuses. The law does not compel one to do that which one cannot possibly perform. "Where the law creates a duty or charge, and the party is disabled to perform it, without any default in him, and has no remedy over it, there the law will in general excuse him." Therefore, when it appears that the performance of the formalities prescribed by a statute has been rendered impossible by circumstances over which the persons interested had no control, like the act of god, the circumstances will be taken as a valid excuse. Where the act of God prevents the compliance of the words of a statute, the statutory provision is not denuded of its mandatory character because of supervening impossibility caused by the act of God. (See Broom's legal Maxims 10th edition at pp. 1962- 63 and Craies on Statute Law 6th Ed. p. 268). These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Special Reference 1 of 1974 (supra)[ (1974) 2 SCC 33 ]. Situations may be created by interested persons to see that elections do not take place and the caretaker government continue in office. This certainly would be against the scheme of the constitution and the basic structure to that extent shall be corroded.” 10. The effect of holding fresh elections would tantamount to removal of successfully elected candidates which would be impermissible at this point in time. The balance has to be struck between the rights of electorates belonging to small portion of the constituency with that of the electorates of the entire constituency. 11. The apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 has observed as under: “23. The balance has to be struck between the rights of electorates belonging to small portion of the constituency with that of the electorates of the entire constituency. 11. The apex Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad & others, (2012) 4 SCC 407 has observed as under: “23. The democratic set-up of the country has always been recognized as a basic feature of the Constitution, like other features e.g. Supremacy of the Constitution, Rule of law, Principle of separation of powers, Power of judicial review under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution etc… … … … (26) Basic means the basis of a thing on which it stands, and on the failure of which it falls. In democracy all citizens have equal political rights. Democracy means actual, active and effective exercise of power by the people in this regard. It means political participation of the people in running the administration of the Government. It conveys the State of affair in which each citizen is assured of the right of equal participation in the polity. (See: R.C. Poudyal v. Union of India & Ors., 1993 AIR(SC) 1804). (27) … … … The trite saying that democracy is for the people, of the people and by the people has to be remembered for ever. In a democratic republic, it is the will of the people that is paramount and becomes the basis of the authority of the Government. The will is expressed in periodic elections based on universal adult suffrage held by means of secret ballot. It is through the ballot that the voter expresses his choice or preference for a candidate Voting is formal expression of will or opinion by the person entitled to exercise the right on the subject or issue , as observed by the Court in Lily Thomas v. Speaker, Lok Sabha, 1993 4 SCC 234 quoting from Black s Law Dictionary. The citizens of the country are their chosen representatives. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the Government of the day is responsible to the people through their elected representatives. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The people s representatives fill the role of law-makers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances.” 12. The elected representative acts or is supposed to act as a live link between the people and the Government. The people s representatives fill the role of law-makers and custodians of the Government. People look to them for ventilation and redressal of their grievances.” 12. In these circumstances, we cannot allow the writ petitioner’s suggestion of maintaining status quo to prevail. We expect the State/appropriate Authorities to implement the judgment expeditiously and positively within a period of six months from today. Needless to state that while undertaking such process all of the aggrieved parties shall be associated by the Authorities. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.