ORDER : 1. These petitions involving similar and akin issues have been considered together; and with the consent and at the request of learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, are taken up for disposal, at this stage itself. 2. Four petitions in this group, being W.P.Nos.46107/2018, 45852/2018, 46108/2018 and 47221/2018, have been filed by different writ petitioners on the same cause, where they seek to question the legality and validity of declaration of bye-elections by the Election Commission under its press note dated 06.10.2018, to fill up the casual vacancies in the Lok Sabha from 3 Parliamentary constituencies of Karnataka, namely, (i) 9–Ballari (ii) 14–Shivamogga and (iii) 20–Mandya. 3. In essence, the contention on the part of the petitioners is that the term of the present Lok Sabha being until the month of May-2019, the proposition of holding bye-elections now and at this stage would practically result in the newly elected members getting the term of less than one year and such a course is not envisaged by law, particularly in view of clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the Act of 1951’). 4. During the course of submissions in W.P.No.46107/2018 and the cognate matters, it was pointed out that similar nature petitions filed in the year 2013, being W.P.Nos.32771/2013 and 32792/2013 were also pending, in which similar questions were raised at the time of holding of bye-elections under the press note dated 19.07.2013 to (i) 20–Mandya and (ii) 23–Bengaluru Rural Parliamentary constituencies, though the prayer for interim relief was rejected in the said petition. For the similar questions being involved, as regards operation of provisions of Section 151A of the Act of 1951, all these petitions have been taken up together. 5. Having regard to the questions involved in these matters, we may take note of Section 151A of the Act of 1951 at the outset and as under: “151A. Time limit for filling vacancies referred to in sections 147, 149, 150 and 151. 5. Having regard to the questions involved in these matters, we may take note of Section 151A of the Act of 1951 at the outset and as under: “151A. Time limit for filling vacancies referred to in sections 147, 149, 150 and 151. – Notwithstanding anything contained in section 147, section 149, section 150 and section 151, a bye-election for filling any vacancy referred to in any of the said sections shall be held within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply if (a) the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year; or (b) the Election Commission in consultation with the Central Government certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the said period.” 6. The factual aspects are not much in dispute. A brief reference thereof may be made from W.P.No.46107/2018, relating to the elections declared under the press note dated 06.10.2018. 7. The elections to the 16th Lok Sabha were conducted between 07.04.2014 to 12.05.2014 and the results were declared on 16.05.2014. According to the petitioner, 16th Lok Sabha is deemed to have been constituted on 16.05.2014 for a term of 5 years. It has been pointed out that some of the vacancies having arisen, the Election Commission presently intends to hold bye-elections as regards such vacancies to the Parliamentary constituencies from the State of Karnataka. The petitioner has submitted that the vacancies in question have arisen for the 3 earlier elected members of Lok Sabha having resigned between 19.05.2018 and 23.05.2018 on account of the fact that they have been elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. It is submitted that the Election Commission issuing the declaration for holding the elections in these vacancies only in the month of October, 2018, the polling being proposed for 03.11.2018, and results to be declared on 06.11.2018, would ultimately lead to the position that the term available for such elected representatives shall be far less than one year. 8. It is submitted that as a result of exercise proposed to be undertaken, when the elected members will get the term of about 6-7 months only, holding of such elections is wholly unreasonable and unwarranted. 9. 8. It is submitted that as a result of exercise proposed to be undertaken, when the elected members will get the term of about 6-7 months only, holding of such elections is wholly unreasonable and unwarranted. 9. On the question of law, it is contended that in terms of Section 151A of the Act of 1951, if the term of the member to be elected is less than one year, the matter is covered by the proviso thereof and hence, the elections are not required to be held to these constituencies. 10. On behalf of the petitioners, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Laxman Gudadhe vs. Election Commission of India and Ors.: AIR 2018 SC 2356 to submit that the term of one year in the proviso to Section 151A refers to the term available to the newly elected member by way of bye-election and not one year from the date of occurrence of vacancy. 11. One of the petitioners, appearing in person, has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. State of Haryana: AIR 1984 SC 1406 , to submit that the decision of the Election Commission ought not to be arbitrary. It is submitted that when a very short tenure is going to be available for the newly elected members, which is much less than one year, the Election Commission was not justified in declaring the elections to the constituencies in question. 12. During the course of submissions, reference has also been made to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Thomasmates Gudinho vs. The Election Commission of India and Ors.: ILR 2002 KAR 3078 and to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. Telangana Rastra Samithi and Anr.: AIR 2011 SC 492 . 13. While contesting these petitions, the Statement of Objections on behalf of the Election Commission is filed in W.P.No.46107/2018. It is submitted that as the first meeting of the 16th Lok Sabha was held on 04.06.2014, in terms of Article 83(2) of the Constitution of India, its term of 5 years shall be reckoned from that date. 13. While contesting these petitions, the Statement of Objections on behalf of the Election Commission is filed in W.P.No.46107/2018. It is submitted that as the first meeting of the 16th Lok Sabha was held on 04.06.2014, in terms of Article 83(2) of the Constitution of India, its term of 5 years shall be reckoned from that date. It is also submitted that the seats of 9-Ballari and 14-Shivamogga Parliamentary constituencies fell vacant on 18.05.2018, whereas that of 20-Mandya constituency fell vacant on 21.05.2018. It is contended that the election notification issued for the purpose of filling up the vacancy is unexceptionable and unassailable in law as also on facts. 14. On behalf of the Election Commission, a report of the Committee on Electoral Reforms made in the month of May- 1990 is also referred and it is pointed out that therein, the Committee had suggested that a bye-election should be held within six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy, provided that the bye-election to fill up the vacancy need not be held if the General Election is normally due within one year from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It is pointed that Section 151A was introduced to the Act of 1951 by the Amendment Act No.21 of 1996 with effect from 01.08.1996, after the aforesaid report of the Committee; and purport of amendment being clear from the said report, the interpretation as suggested by the petitioner is of no substance. 15. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record, we are unable to find any case for interference in these petitions. 16. So far the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India vs. State of Haryana is concerned, the same having been delivered in a different context and not on the interpretation of Section 151A of the Act of 1951, has hardly any application to this matter. In the said case, on 06.04.1984, the Election Commission sent the message and programme for holding election to 59-Taoru Assembly constituency in Haryana in order to fill the vacancy arising from setting aside the election of the returned candidate. The Election Commission had also issued election programmes in relation to several other Assembly constituencies to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal. The Election Commission had also issued election programmes in relation to several other Assembly constituencies to the States of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal. However, on 07.04.1984, the Government of Haryana made a request to the Election Commission to hold the proposed bye-election along with General Elections to the Lok Sabha, due later in the year. It is noticed that the law and order situation in the neighboring State of Punjab was the main ground for which, the Government of Haryana had been making request to the Chief Election Commissioner not to hold the bye-election. However, the Chief Election Commissioner, on 16.04.1984, reiterated that the decision to hold the bye-election was taken after taking into account the situation in Punjab and the fact that no parties were opposed to holding of the elections. 17. Aggrieved by the decision of the Election Commission, the Government of Haryana filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana wherein, an ex parte order was passed on 17.04.1984, staying the issuance and publication of notification by the Election Commission under Sections 30, 56 and 150 of the Act of 1951. However, the operation of the said interim order was suspended by the Supreme Court the very next day, i.e., on 18.04.1984. 18. Thereafter, on the matter being heard finally, the Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court, while holding that when the Election Commission had taken the decision after due regard of the facts and circumstances, the High Court was not justified in interfering; and it was not in the power of the High Court to decide as to whether the law and order situation in the State of Punjab and Haryana is such as not to warrant or permit, holding of the election. 19. During the course of such consideration and in the given context, the Supreme Court observed that the ultimate decision as to whether it is possible and expedient at any given point of time must rest with the Election Commission, but the Election Commission cannot exercise its discretion in the arbitrary and mala fide manner because arbitrariness and mala fide destroy the quality and efficacy of all orders passed by the public authorities. 20. 20. The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court have been strongly relied upon in the present case, but totally detached from the context and even the very next observations where the Supreme Court made it clear that on an issue like the given one, concerning a situation of law and order, the Election Commission must consider the views of the State Government and all other concerned bodies or authorities before coming to the conclusion that there is no objection to the holding of election at the given point of time. On the facts, the Supreme Court also noticed that the Election Commission had indeed taken into account the view of the Government and came to the decision after bearing in mind the pros and cons of the whole of the situation. 21. Apart that the said judgment has no relevance to the present case, we may observe that if such kind of a situation is to be dealt with, on the law as now applicable, clause (b) of the proviso to Section 151A of the Act of 1951 may have a role to play, where the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government could certify that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the given period. Viewed from any angle, the said judgment has no application to the present case. It is not laid down that every decision concerning the elections is open for scrutiny by the Courts. 22. The decision in the cases of Gudinho and Telangana Rastra Samithi also relate to a different fact situation. In Gudinho, this Court has examined the matter in the peculiar facts that the vacancy had arisen for the demise of the returned candidate, but at the given point of time, the election petition filed by one of the candidates was pending, wherein the election-petitioner not only sought setting aside of the election of the returned candidate, but further sought the declaration of himself having been elected under Section 101 of the Act of 1951. In the context, this Court found Section 151A to be not applicable and observed as under: “Section 151A no doubt seeks to ensure that no Constituency remains un-represented for more than six months. But it is not unconditional. In the context, this Court found Section 151A to be not applicable and observed as under: “Section 151A no doubt seeks to ensure that no Constituency remains un-represented for more than six months. But it is not unconditional. It is subject to two exceptions, i.e., where the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year or where the Election Commission in consultation with the Central Government certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye election within the said period. Further the Non-obstanate clause is limited in its application to Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151. The non-obstante clause does not refer to Section 84 or 98(c) or 101. It therefore follows that Section 151A will have no application if an Election Petition is pending where the prayer is not merely a challenge to the election of the elected candidate, but also seeks a declaration that the petitioner or some one else should be declared as having been elected under Section 84 read with Section 101 of the Act.” 23. In the case of Telangana Rastra Samiti (supra), the question for interpretation related to Section 84 of the Act of 1951, where it was held that on account of resignation by the elected candidate, while an election petition under Section 84 of the Act of 1951 remained pending, would not become a vacancy available for being filled up and/or capable of being filled up till a declaration was either made or refused under the latter part of Section 84. In that context, the decision of this Court in Gudinho (supra), was also examined and considered by the Supreme Court. In view of different issues being involved, the said decision is also of no applicability. 24. In the case of Pramod Laxman Gudadhe (supra), where holding of an election in terms of Section 151A of the Act of 1951 was sought to be questioned, the Supreme Court found that the returned candidate had tendered his resignation in the month of December-2017 and after the same having been accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha, as per the command of Section 151A , the elections were required to be held within 6 months from the date of occurrence of vacancy. In that context, the Supreme Court observed as under: “16. In the case at hand, no election petition was pending. In that context, the Supreme Court observed as under: “16. In the case at hand, no election petition was pending. The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. The command of Section 151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. As the factual score depicts, the vacancy occurred when the resignation was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. It is beyond any dispute that the next General Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019. Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less than one year. Whether the election is to be held or not would be governed by clause (b) to the proviso to Section 151A and we are not concerned with the same. The ground raised that the code of conduct would come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so. It is the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause. Such an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of Parliament is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented. The concern expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a ground. It is so because the representative democracy has to sustain itself by the elected representatives. We may hasten to add that the matter would be different when an election dispute is pending against the candidate that comes within the ambit and sweep of Section 84 or Section 98(c) or Section 101(b) of the Act. That not being the case, the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impregnable.” 25. In the present case, essentially, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that on the true interpretation, clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A ought to be read to mean that the term of the member to be elected against the vacancy should not be less than one year. In the present case, essentially, it is the contention on behalf of the petitioners that on the true interpretation, clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A ought to be read to mean that the term of the member to be elected against the vacancy should not be less than one year. This submission, in our view, is against the plain language of the statue and in case of any doubt, the same stands quelled with the report of a Committee on Electoral Reforms May-1990 on the basis whereof, Section 151A was introduced to the Act of 1951. As regards the time limit for holding bye-election, the Committee stated its recommendation in clause 59 of the summary as under: “Time-limit for holding bye-elections 59. A bye-election should be held within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy and such a bye-election need not be held if a general election is normally due within one year from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy.” 26. The aforesaid summary had been based on the subject of time limit for holding bye-elections as specified in clause 9 of the report of the Committee on Electoral Reforms that may also be usefully noticed as under: “9. Time-limit for holding bye-elections 9.1 The Committee took note of the reasons for the delay in holding bye-elections as explained in the Notes. 9.2 In this context, the Committee examined the proposal as contained in the Notes that a bye-election should be held within three months of the vacancy with the rider that if the vacancy has arisen within six months prior to a general election normally due, it would not be necessary to fill the vacancy. 9.3 The consensus among members is that a bye-election should be held within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy as against the proposal of three months provided that bye-election to fill a vacancy need not be held if a general election is normally due within one year from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy.” 27. As noticed, the provision under consideration, i.e. Section 151A of the Act of 1951, came to be inserted after such recommendations. As noticed, the provision under consideration, i.e. Section 151A of the Act of 1951, came to be inserted after such recommendations. Looking to the question at hand, as regards the interpretation of Section 151A of the Act, the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee on Electoral Reforms may be referred, in view of a slight ambiguity in the expression employed in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 151A. In an overall view of the matter, there remains nothing to doubt that the intention of Legislature while inserting Section 151A had been that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151, bye-election for filling any vacancy referred to in the said Sections should be held within 6 months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy, but it is provided that in two eventualities, the provisions of Section 151A would not apply viz., (a) when the remainder of the term of a member in relation to the vacancy is less than one year and (b) when the Election Commission, in consultation with the Central Government certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within that period. 28. Obviously, clause (b) provides for an eventuality, where the Election Commission may find it difficult to hold the bye-election within the period of 6 months as contemplated by the principal provision contained in Section 151A. So far clause (a) of the proviso is concerned, it seeks to provide that such bye election need not be held if the General Elections is due within one year from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. The said intent is reflected in clause (a) of the proviso, but in a slightly different phraseology than that employed in the aforesaid Clause 59 of Committee’s report that remainder of the term of the member in relation to the vacancy ought not be less than one year. 29. However, looking to the purport and the purpose of the said provision, it is but clear that the period of one year as referred in clause (a) is not referring to the term of the newly elected member after occurrence of vacancy, but the same refers to the remaining term from the date of occurrence of vacancy and that ought not be less than one year. 30. 30. Apart that the position is clear from the aforesaid report of the Committee on Electoral Reforms, in our view, any other interpretation, would be not in consonance with the requirements of the functioning of Parliamentary Democracy that a constituency is not to remain unrepresented for a considerable time. 31. In the case at hand relating to the election to be held on 03.11.2018, the vacancies had occurred on 18.05.2018 and 21.05.2018. If the elections are not held in relation to such vacancies, the result would be of the said constituencies remaining unrepresented in the Parliament for more than one year until the determination of its term i.e., 03.06.2019. That being the position, the Election Commission cannot be said to have committed any error in declaring the elections to the constituencies in question. Therefore, these petitions are required to be dismissed. 32. So far the petitions relating to the elections held in the year 2013 are concerned, on the factual aspects, those petitions have already been rendered infructuous. In any case, for what has been observed hereinabove, those petitions are also required to be dismissed. 33. Accordingly, and in view of the above, these petitions stand dismissed.