JUDGMENT : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for first respondent, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for respondents 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief :- “… to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the advancement of special summary revision of photo electoral rolls by issuing notification memo No.890/Elecs.B/A1/2018-58, dated 09.09.2018 by the respondent No.4 as illegal, arbitrary, against the constitution and against the principles of natural justice, and consequently quash the same and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The challenge levied through this writ petition, as noted above, is to the decision of the fourth respondent, Chief Electoral Officer. The notification issued by the fourth respondent is merely one which contains the decision of the first respondent, Election Commission of India, which is Ex.P.2. That was issued on 08.09.2018. It is on the basis of that decision of the Election Commission of India that the Chief Electoral Officer of Telangana had issued Ex.P.1, dated 08.09.2018, which is impugned in this writ petition. 4. It is ex facie established from Ex.P.2 that the Election Commission of India was in cognizance of the fact that there was premature dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Telangana and that fact has been taken into consideration by the Election Commission of India, going by the contents of Ex.P.2. The Election Commission of India has taken consideration the relevant facts and the law laid by the Supreme Court in the judicial proceedings referred to therein. The Election Commission of India decided to stop all activities relating to ongoing Special Summary Revision of Photo Electoral Rolls with reference to 01.01.2019 as qualifying date in the State of Telangana with immediate effect and also to order second Special Summary Revision of Photo Electoral Rolls with reference to 01.01.2018 as qualifying date in the State. That decision of the Election Commission of India included the Commission’s Order No.23/ORD/FUNC/ERD/2018, dated 08.09.2018, which is referred to in Ex.P.2. The said order is Ex.P3, wherein the Election Commission of India has dealt with different relevant aspects leading to its decision. That decision of the Election Commission of India included the Commission’s Order No.23/ORD/FUNC/ERD/2018, dated 08.09.2018, which is referred to in Ex.P.2. The said order is Ex.P3, wherein the Election Commission of India has dealt with different relevant aspects leading to its decision. It had taken note of the fact that the Special Summary Revision of Photo Electoral Rolls in all States and Union Territories (except Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram and Rajasthan) including the State of Telangana, with reference to 01.01.2019 as the qualifying date, was ordered by the Election Commission of India in its letter dated 07.05.2018. The State Legislative Assembly of Telangana was dissolved prematurely on 06.09.2018. Taking note of the fact of such dissolution in terms of Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the Election Commission took into consideration all aspects and decided to order Special Summary Revision with reference to 01.01.2018 as the qualifying date. It was, therefore, that the decision contained in Ex.P.3 was made by the Election Commission of India. Taking note of the fact of such dissolution in terms of Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, the Election Commission took into consideration all aspects and decided to order Special Summary Revision with reference to 01.01.2018 as the qualifying date. It was, therefore, that the decision contained in Ex.P.3 was made by the Election Commission of India. The relevant portion of that decision is as follows:- “Now, therefore, the Commission hereby orders that: (i) All the activities relating to ongoing revision of electoral rolls including last part thereof with reference to 01.01.2019 as the qualifying date in respect of the State of Telangana shall be stopped with immediate effect; (ii) The claims and objections that may have been received so far during the period of special summary revision 2019 in respect of the State of Telangana, shall be segregated in two bunches in such a way that the first bunch contains the applications (claims and objections) relating to the persons who are already eligible with reference to 01.01.2018 as the qualifying date and the second bunch contains the applications (claims and objections) relating to the persons, who would be eligible with reference to 01.01.2019 as the qualifying date; (iii) All the applications contained in the first bunch in respect of persons eligible as on 01.01.2018 shall be disposed of after following due procedure of law treating such applications as part of the Special Summary Revision, 2018 as ordered by the Commission; and (iv) All the applications with reference to 01.01.2019 as qualifying date contained in second bunch (who are not eligible with reference to 01.01.2018) shall be taken up for disposal as and when the Commission orders the schedule of revision of electoral roll with reference to 01.01.2019 as qualifying date in respect of the State of Telangana.” 5. It is based on Ex.P.3 decision of the Election Commission of India, forwarded as per Ex.P.2 by the Under Secretary of Election Commission of India, that the fourth respondent, Chief Electoral Officer of Telangana, issued the impugned Ex.P.1. Therefore, fundamentally the impugned Ex.P.1, against which a declaratory relief is sought for, is one that is entirely based on Ex.P.3, decision of the Election Commission of India. We do not see any contradiction between the contents of Ex.P.1 and the contents of Ex.P.3. 6. Therefore, fundamentally the impugned Ex.P.1, against which a declaratory relief is sought for, is one that is entirely based on Ex.P.3, decision of the Election Commission of India. We do not see any contradiction between the contents of Ex.P.1 and the contents of Ex.P.3. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Special Reference Case No.1 of 2002 argued that the fundamental foundation of democracy includes such principles which are to be found to persuade to such extent that there is no exclusion of voters, who would become eligible to vote, had the cut off date of 01.01.2019 being maintained. We have given our anxious consideration to the contents of the decision in Special Reference Case No.1 of 2002, wherein their Lordships rendered decision by answering the Reference as follows:- “To sum up, answers to the questions set out in the Reference are as follows: 1. The provisions of Article 174 are mandatory in character so far as the time period between two sessions is concerned in respect of live Assemblies and not dissolved Assemblies. Article 174 and Article 324 operate in different fields. Article 174 does not deal with elections which is the primary function of the Election Commission under Article 324. Therefore, the question of one yielding to the other does not arise. There is scope of harmonizing both in a manner indicated supra. 2. Article 174 is not relatable to a dissolved Assembly. Similar is the position under Article 85 vis-à-vis House of People. Merely because the time schedule fixed under Article 174 cannot be adhered to, that per se cannot be the ground for bringing into operation Article 356. 3. As Article 174 does not deal with election, the question of Election commissioner taking the aid, assistance or co-operation of the Center or the State Governments or to draw upon their resources to hold the election does not arise. On the contrary for effective operation of Article 324 the Election Commission can do so to ensure holding of free and fair election. The question whether free and fair election is possible to be held or not has to be objectively assessed by the Election Commission by taking into consideration all relevant aspects. Efforts should be to hold the election and not to defer holding of election.” 7. The question whether free and fair election is possible to be held or not has to be objectively assessed by the Election Commission by taking into consideration all relevant aspects. Efforts should be to hold the election and not to defer holding of election.” 7. The power of the Election Commission of India available under Article 324 of the Constitution of India is the power of superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections which are referred to in clause (1) of Article 324 of the Constitution of India. The power of the Election Commission of India to do so is not shown by the petitioner to have been vitiated on any ground for the purpose of interference in exercise of Article 226 of Constitution of India. We say this notwithstanding the situation that there is no direct challenge levied to the decision of the Election Commission of India as it is, since Ex.P.3 is not under challenge in this writ petition. 8. The mere fact that, according to the petitioner, a sizable group of new voters may get excluded from the voters list if 01.01.2018 is taken as the cut off date, does not by itself appeal to us in the larger public interest to have elections held at the earliest. This is because the constitutional scheme for the governance of a State, as enshrined in the Constitution of India, does not embolden us to say that a caretaker Government should be permitted to continue to enable the finalization of voters’ list as on 01.01.2019 and thereby further push off the elections. This is all the more so because conducting of elections and having the democratic process roll forward is itself a constitutional mandate. 9. The exclusion of those voters who would have come into the list of voters is not something on which this Court could draw an inference. How they would vote or how the free and fair elections would be affected by their absence is not a matter which could be concluded through a mechanism of inferences or presumptions by this Court. The plea of the petitioner that free and fair elections would be jeopardized if the relevant date for finalization of electoral roll is retained as 01.01.2018 cannot be accepted. 10. The plea of the petitioner that free and fair elections would be jeopardized if the relevant date for finalization of electoral roll is retained as 01.01.2018 cannot be accepted. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to grant any relief as sought for at the instance of the petitioner. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending in this Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.