Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 25 (TS)

Nalarnada Uttam Kumar Reddy v. State of Telangana

2020-01-07

A.ABHISHEK REDDY, RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2020
ORDER : RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Notification dated 23.12.2019 issued by the Telangana State Election Commission (‘the Commission’, for short), respondent No.3, whereby the Commissioner has invoked its powers under Articles 243-K, and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India, read with Section 195 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019 (the Act, for short), thereby notifying the election schedule for conducting of the ordinary elections to the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. 2. This case has a rather chequered history, which is as under:- The last elections to the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations were held in March, 2014. The term of the said Municipalities and Municipal Corporations expired on 02.07.2019/04.07.2019 respectively. 3. By letter dated 15.09.2018, the Commission informed the State Government that the terms of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations will expire in July, 2019. Therefore, a tentative schedule of events for conducting of elections needs to be drawn up by 31.05.2019. It also requested the Government to instruct the statutory authorities/officials so that they can accomplish their tasks in time. 4. By letter dated 02.02.2019, the Commission informed the Government to complete the process of delimitation of Wards by 22.02.2019. It further informed the Government that it is planning to complete the publication of Electoral Rolls by March, 2019, and to tentatively hold the elections in May, 2019. However, by letter dated 12.03.2019, the State Government requested the Commission to extend the date for publication of Ward-wise Electoral Rolls in the Municipalities. For, the Government was contemplating to bring in a new Municipalities Act, 2019. Considering the request made by the Government, the Commission informed the Municipal Commissioners to put on hold the preparation and publication of Ward-wise Electoral Rolls. Simultaneously, the Commission informed the State Government that it still plans to hold the elections on 31.05.2019. For, the Commission is duty bound to complete all the Municipal elections by 30.06.2019. Despite the said letter, the State Government did not initiate the election process. 5. Since the Government did not initiate the election process, the Commission filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.10570 of 2019, challenging the inaction of the State Government in not confirming the delimitation of Wards, and in not notifying the reservation of seats for the urban local bodies, whose term was due to expire on 02.07.2019. 6. 5. Since the Government did not initiate the election process, the Commission filed a writ petition before this Court, namely W.P.No.10570 of 2019, challenging the inaction of the State Government in not confirming the delimitation of Wards, and in not notifying the reservation of seats for the urban local bodies, whose term was due to expire on 02.07.2019. 6. By order dated 25.06.2019, a learned Single Judge of this Court recorded the time schedule as specified by the State Government, and directed that the pre-election process should be completed within 109 days. The Commission, in turn, was directed to complete the election process within thirty days after the pre-election process was completed by the State Government. 7. As mentioned hereinabove, the terms of the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations expired on 02.07.2019 and 04.07.2019. Therefore, no municipal elections have been held in the State since 04.07.2019. Thus, the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations do not have any elected ward members presently. 8. In consonance with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the Government, and the Commission, on 03.07.2019, the Commission issued a Notification notifying 18.07.2019 as the date for publication of the Photo Electoral Rolls of all the Wards of Municipalities. Subsequently, by Notification dated 06.07.2019, the date for final publication of the Ward-wise Photo Electoral Rolls was preponed to 14.07.2019. 9. Since some persons were aggrieved by the delimitation of the Wards, a large number of writ petitions were filed before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court stayed the conducting of the elections in different Municipalities. However, the learned Single Judge permitted the Government to take the remedial steps to comply with the Rules, and to conduct the elections only after the illegalities noticed were removed. The learned Single Judge also directed the Government to keep in mind the election schedule specified in W.P.No.10570 of 2019 dated 25.06.2019. 10. Meanwhile, on 16.07.2019, a Public Interest Litigation, namely W.P. (PIL) No.84 of 2019, was filed before a learned Division Bench of this Court. The said writ petition challenged the schedule for delimitation of Municipalities, the publication of Ward-wise Photo Electoral Rolls, and the schedule for identification of SC, ST, BC, and Women voters. However, by judgment dated 22.10.2019, the learned Division Bench dismissed the said Public Interest Litigation. 11. The said writ petition challenged the schedule for delimitation of Municipalities, the publication of Ward-wise Photo Electoral Rolls, and the schedule for identification of SC, ST, BC, and Women voters. However, by judgment dated 22.10.2019, the learned Division Bench dismissed the said Public Interest Litigation. 11. By order dated 29.11.2019, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the other writ petitions pending before him by passing a common order, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the Municipal Commissioners to receive the objections, and to consider the same, and to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. 12. In order to hold the municipal elections as soon as possible, on 23.12.2019, the Commission issued a Notification, notifying the “Election Schedule for Conduct of Ordinary Elections to 120 Municipalities, and 10 Municipal Corporations”. (The petitioner is aggrieved by this particular notification). However, to complete the narration of facts, which is relevant for the decision of this case, the further facts are that on 24.12.2019, the Election Authority, and the Director of Municipal Administration issued a letter to the Municipal Commissioners notifying the time schedule for identification of SC, ST, BC, and Women voters in 136 Municipalities. On 04.01.2020, the Electoral Rolls were published finally by the Commission. By G. O. Ms. No. 7, dated 05.01.2020, the Commission notified the reservation of Offices of Chairpersons for SC, ST, BC, and Women. By another G.O., namely G. O. Ms. No. 8, dated 05.01.2020, the Commission notified the reservation of Offices of Mayors for SC, ST, BC, and Women. 13. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court:- Firstly, although the impugned Notification, dated 23.12.2019, claims that it is being issued under Section 195 of the Act, the said notification is not in accordance with Section 195 of the Act. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 195 of the Act, the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that the said provision is divided into five different parts. According to Section 195(1) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to issue the Election Notification, and the Schedule for general elections for the casual vacancies in all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. Therefore, Section 195 of the Act differentiates between “the Election Notification”, and the “Schedule”. According to Section 195(1) of the Act, the Commission is empowered to issue the Election Notification, and the Schedule for general elections for the casual vacancies in all the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. Therefore, Section 195 of the Act differentiates between “the Election Notification”, and the “Schedule”. Section 195(2) of the Act specifically deals with “the Election Notification”, when it empowers the Commission to publish the date/dates, for calling the voters to vote, for filling up the ordinary vacancies of the Municipalities. Moreover, Section 195(3) of the Act deals with “the Schedule”, and gives a proforma of the Schedule to be notified by the Commission. Furthermore, Section 195(4) of the Act empowers the Returning Officer to issue the election notice for election of the Ward Members of the Municipality. Lastly, Section 195(5) of the Act empowers the Commission to issue the election notification for election of the Chairperson, and the Vice-Chairperson. Secondly, the impugned Notification is a bundle of confusion. For, it uses the word “Notification”, but in fact, publishes the “Schedule” for conducting of the general elections. In order to buttress this plea, the learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the election schedule published along with the notification. Thirdly, the election process is being carried out by the Commission in hot-haste for reasons best known to it. Although the Commission is required to hold free and fair elections, the hot-haste being shown by the Commission is an indication that the municipal elections would neither be free, nor fair. The learned Senior Counsel further points out that in the order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 10570 of 2019, the learned Single Judge had given a schedule for the pre-election process, and for the completion of the election process. According to the said order, the State Government was granted 109 days for pre7 election process, and the Commission was granted thirty days to complete the election process. However, the respondents are moving in crashing hurry to complete the entire process within a period of five days. 14. According to the said order, the State Government was granted 109 days for pre7 election process, and the Commission was granted thirty days to complete the election process. However, the respondents are moving in crashing hurry to complete the entire process within a period of five days. 14. In order to buttress this plea, the learned Senior Counsel has further argued that Rule 14 of the Telangana Municipalities (Reservation of Seats in Municipal Corporations and Municipal Councils) Rules, 2019 (henceforth to be referred as ‘the Rules’) clearly stipulates that the Ward shall be reserved for different categories of Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes, and of Women, with reference to “the largest percentage of voters of the said category to the total number of voters of the Ward in the Municipality concerned in descending order”. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, before the Wards can be reserved, it is imperative that the Electoral Rolls should be finalized. The learned Senior Counsel submits that once a procedure has been prescribed by the law, the Commission must conform to the said procedure. However, a perusal of another Notification dated 23.12.2019 dealing with the publication of Photo Electoral Rolls, and the perusal of the letter dated 24.12.2019 issued by the Election Authority, and the Director of Municipal Administration would clearly reveal that the process of preparation of the draft Photo Electoral Rolls, and notifying the time schedule for identification of SC, ST, BC, and Women voters in the Municipalities is being done during the same period, namely from 30.12.2019 to 04.01.2020. 15. Therefore, Rule 14 of the Rules is being violated by the respondents. 16. Lastly, relying on the case of Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) 11 SCC 455 , and in the case of Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida, (2011) 6 SCC 508 , the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that when a thing is done in post-haste manner, mala fides can be presumed by Court. Hence, since the election is being done in a post-haste manner, this Court would be justified in assuming that the holding of the elections is being done with a mala fide intention. Moreover, relying on the case of Zenit Mataplast (Private) Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 , the learned Senior Counsel has further pleaded that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary. Moreover, relying on the case of Zenit Mataplast (Private) Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 10 SCC 388 , the learned Senior Counsel has further pleaded that anything done in undue haste can also be termed as arbitrary. The said action cannot be condoned in law. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel has vehemently pleaded that the notification dated 23.12.2019 deserves to be set aside by this Court. 17. On the other hand, Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for the Commission, has raised the following counter-contentions before this Court:- Firstly, relying upon the case of Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC 216 , the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that while dealing with the election matters, the power of judicial review is an extremely limited one. Relying on the case of Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M.Hassan Uzzaman(1985) 4 SCC 689, the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that even assuming that preparation, and publication of Electoral Rolls are not a part of the process of election, even then the High Court should restrained from interfering with the election process. Moreover, relying on the case of Anugrah Narain Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 303 , the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that where the election is imminent, or well under way, or where the elections are being held after an inordinate delay, the High Court should not intervene to stop the election process. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, even if the election process has not commenced with the issuance of election notification, even then, this Court must restrain itself in interfering with the election process. Secondly, Section 195 of the Act would have to be read in toto, rather than in piece-meal manner. Section 195(1) of the Act deals with both “the election notification”, and “the schedule”. Section 195(2) of the Act prescribes the modus operandi through which a notice can be issued to the public with regard to the election schedule. Section 195(3) of the Act illustrates the proforma for issuance of the election schedule. Section 195(4) of the Act deals with the duty of the Returning Officer for issuance of election notice for election of the ward members of the Municipality. Thirdly, the impugned notification, in fact, has been issued under Section 195(2),(3),(4) of the Act, and not under Section 195(1) of the Act. Section 195(4) of the Act deals with the duty of the Returning Officer for issuance of election notice for election of the ward members of the Municipality. Thirdly, the impugned notification, in fact, has been issued under Section 195(2),(3),(4) of the Act, and not under Section 195(1) of the Act. Therefore, it is not “the election notification”, but it merely contains the election schedule. Moreover, there is no requirement in law that the issuance of “the election schedule” needs to be preceded by the issuance of “the election notification”. The purpose of Section 195(2) of the Act is merely to bring it to the notice of the public at large about the schedule for holding of the election, so that the voters, the prospective candidates, and the political parties, fielding the candidates, can start their preparation for the upcoming elections. Furthermore, Section 195(3) of the Act clearly states that the notification “shall specifying time schedule for various stages of the elections”, and the notification issued under subclause (2), shall be treated as “an election notice”. Therefore, the impugned notification is nothing but an “election notice” for the benefit of the public at large. Hence, it is not an “election notification” under Section 195(1) of the Act. Fourthly, the notification itself proclaims that it is being issued under Section 195 of the Act, without specifying under which sub-section of Section 195 of the Act it is being issued. Furthermore, the notification clearly states that “the election notification” shall be issued on 07.01.2020. This clearly is a pointer to the fact that the impugned notification is not “the election notification” as contemplated under Section 195 of the Act. Fifthly, a bare perusal of the election schedule attached with the notification would clearly reveal that it deals with both sub-section (3) of Section 195 of the Act, and with sub-section (4) of Section 195 of the Act. Serial No. 1 clearly announces that “the election Notification” will be issued on 07.01.2020. Serial No.2 of the election schedule clearly states that the date of issuance of the election notice by the Returning Officer under sub-section (4) shall be 08.01.2020. But, simultaneously, Serial Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 referred to the proforma schedule published under Section 195(3) of the Act. The election schedule further proclaims that the date of poll shall be 22.01.2020. But, simultaneously, Serial Nos.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 referred to the proforma schedule published under Section 195(3) of the Act. The election schedule further proclaims that the date of poll shall be 22.01.2020. It also indicates the counting of votes shall be on 25.01.2020. Therefore, the Election Commission has merely issued the election notice under Section 195(2) of the Act. Sixthly, even prior to the issuance of the election notification on 07.01.2020, not only the voters have been identified on the basis of being SC, ST, BC and Women, but even the Wards have been reserved for the said categories on the basis of their population. Therefore, Rule 14 of the Rules has been duly complied with. Lastly, the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the President of the Telangana Pradesh Congress Party, the State unit of the Indian National Congress, from 02.03.2015. Therefore, although outwardly the petition may appear to be innocuous, but essentially, it is a subterfuge with ulterior motives, and hidden agenda, to interrupt, and to protract the election process. In such circumstances, this Court should be extra cautious while interfering with the election process. 18. In rejoinder, Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the case of Digvijay Mote v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 175 , in order to plead that the powers conferred on the Election Commission are not unbridled. Therefore, judicial review would be permissible over the Commission. The power conferred on the Commission, can neither be exercised mindlessly, nor with a mala fide intention, nor arbitrarily. In case, the power were exercised arbitrarily, then the decision of the Election Commission would be subject to judicial review. Moreover, relying on the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that the judicial intervention is available if assistance of the Court has been sought for merely correcting, or smoothening the process of the election proceedings, or to remove the obstacles therein. Since the power has been exercised by the Election Commission in hot-haste, since it is a mala fide exercise of power, it is patently arbitrary. Therefore, this Court would be justified in invoking its power of judicial review, and in striking down the notification dated 23.12.2019. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned notification. 20. Since the power has been exercised by the Election Commission in hot-haste, since it is a mala fide exercise of power, it is patently arbitrary. Therefore, this Court would be justified in invoking its power of judicial review, and in striking down the notification dated 23.12.2019. 19. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned notification. 20. The limits of exercise of power of judicial review in election cases has taxed the mind of the judiciary for decades. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was with regard to the “jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and to issue interim directions after the commencement of the electoral process”. 21. While dealing with the said issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed the law enunciated in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District, AIR 1952 SC 64 , and the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 . While dealing with these two judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under. The plenary power of Article 329 has been stated by the Constitution Bench to be founded on two principles: (1) the peremptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the commencement and the conclusion; (2) the provision of a special jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrieved party at the end of the election excludes other form, the right and remedy being creatures of statutes and controlled by the Constitution. On these principles the conclusions arrived at in Ponnuswami case [ AIR 1952 SC 64 ] were so stated in Mohinder Singh Gill case [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ] : (SCC p. 426, para 26) “(1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the ‘election’; and, if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the ‘election’ and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress.” (emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted as under:- A reading of Mohinder Singh Gill case [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ] points out that there may be a few controversies which may not attract the wrath of Article 329(b). To wit: (i) power vested in a functionary like the Election Commission is a trust and in view of the same having been vested in high functionary can be expected to be discharged reasonably, with objectivity and independence and in accordance with law. The possibility however cannot be ruled out where the repository of power may act in breach of law or arbitrarily or mala fide. (ii) A dispute raised may not amount to calling in question an election if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. The Election Commission may pass an order which far from accomplishing and completing the process of election may thwart the course of the election and such a step may be wholly unwarranted by the Constitution and wholly unsustainable under the law. 22. While demarcating the exceptions to the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court has also held that the assistance of the Court may be urgently and immediately needed “to preserve the evidence without in any manner intermeddling with or thwarting the progress of election”. 23. 22. While demarcating the exceptions to the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, the Apex Court has also held that the assistance of the Court may be urgently and immediately needed “to preserve the evidence without in any manner intermeddling with or thwarting the progress of election”. 23. Having defined the exceptions to the bar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has summed up its conclusions as under:- For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution Benches have already said and then adding by clarifying what follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by us hereinabove: (1) If an election, (the term election being widely interpreted so as to include all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of election till the date of declaration of result) is to be called in question and which questioning may have the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election proceedings in any manner, the invoking of judicial remedy has to be postponed till after the completing of proceedings in elections. (2) Any decision sought and rendered will not amount to “calling in question an election” if it subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election. Anything done towards completing or in furtherance of the election proceedings cannot be described as questioning the election. (3) Subject to the above, the action taken or orders issued by Election Commission are open to judicial review on the well-settled parameters which enable judicial review of decisions of statutory bodies such as on a case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power being made out or the statutory body being shown to have acted in breach of law. (4) Without interrupting, obstructing or delaying the progress of the election proceedings, judicial intervention is available if assistance of the court has been sought for merely to correct or smoothen the progress of the election proceedings, to remove the obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of evidence if the same would be lost or destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time the results are declared and stage is set for invoking the jurisdiction of the court. (5) The court must be very circumspect and act with caution while entertaining any election dispute though not hit by the bar of Article 329(b) but brought to it during the pendency of election proceedings. The court must guard against any attempt at retarding, interrupting, protracting or stalling of the election proceedings. Care has to be taken to see that there is no attempt to utilise the court's indulgence by filing a petition outwardly innocuous but essentially a subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior or hidden end. Needless to say that in the very nature of the things the court would act with reluctance and shall not act, except on a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision and supporting the same by necessary material. (emphasis added) 24. In the case of Laxmi Charan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- … though the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and issuing a rule therein since, the writ petition apparently contained a challenge to several provisions of election laws, it was not justified in passing any order which would have the effect of postponing the elections which were then imminent. Even assuming, therefore, that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a part of the process of ‘election’ within the meaning of Article 329(b), we must reiterate our view that the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it not only assumed control over the election process but, as a result of which, the election to the Legislative Assembly stood the risk of being postponed indefinitely. (emphasis added) 25. Moreover, in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh (supra), the Apex Court has clearly proclaimed that “if the election is imminent, or well under way, the Court should not intervene to stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election will ever take place because someone or the other will always find some excuse to move the Court, and stall the elections. The importance of holding elections at regular intervals cannot be overemphasized. If holding of elections is allowed to stall on the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who have a right to elect their representatives to the democratic bodies”. The importance of holding elections at regular intervals cannot be overemphasized. If holding of elections is allowed to stall on the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who have a right to elect their representatives to the democratic bodies”. 26. In the Case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Apex Court further held that “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 but 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”. (emphasis added). 27. Therefore, the preliminary issue before this Court is whether even if the election process has not been initiated by the issuance of the election notification, even then, can this Court invoke its power of judicial review to interfere with the election or not? 28. Undoubtedly, democracy is the basic structure of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly, the holding of elections, at regular interval, is crucial for sustaining, and strengthening democracy in the country. Undoubtedly, elections trigger heat and dust, cacophony and harmony, wherein people are divided according to their political affiliations. Such a scenario is bound to create certain persons with grievances with regard to the holding of the elections. However, elections cannot be held at ransom by such disgruntled, or aggrieved persons. For, the river of democratic process, like the election, must be permitted to flow freely without unnecessary interruptions, and obstacles. 29. It is, precisely, for this reason, that as far back as in 1952, in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had proclaimed that “once the election (a term of wide connotation) commences, the judiciary must hold its hands back, and not interfere with the election”. 30. Mr. 29. It is, precisely, for this reason, that as far back as in 1952, in the case of N.P.Ponnuswami (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court had proclaimed that “once the election (a term of wide connotation) commences, the judiciary must hold its hands back, and not interfere with the election”. 30. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel is justified in claiming that the election process begins with the issuance of the “election notification”, and since the “election notification” is yet to be issued, the “election process” has not commenced. However, in the case of Laxmi Charan Sen (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that “even assuming, therefore, that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a part of the process of election, even then, the High Court should not interfere”. Similar views have also been expressed in the case of Anugrah Narain Singh (supra). 31. Of course, in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has carved out certain exceptions to the bar contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India, which is pari materia with Article 343-ZG of the Constitution of India. However, even the said exception relates to an order passed by the Election Commission that would “thwart the course of election”. Therefore, the issue before this Court is whether the impugned notification issued by the Election Commission “thwarts the course of election”, or not? 32. For the reasons to be stated hereinbelow, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned notification does not thwart the course of election. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this Court should not invoke the power of judicial review. For, the invoking of the said power would only interrupt, obstruct, and protract the election proceedings. Thus, the invocation of the said power would be contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 33. Admittedly, the holding of Municipalities elections has been hanging fire since 04.07.2019 till date. Undoubtedly, the Municipalities elections cannot be postponed indefinitely. For, such postponement adversely affects the “the fate of the constituency, and the citizens generally”. Therefore, this Court is reluctant to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the petitioner. 34. Section 195 of the Act is as under:- 195. Undoubtedly, the Municipalities elections cannot be postponed indefinitely. For, such postponement adversely affects the “the fate of the constituency, and the citizens generally”. Therefore, this Court is reluctant to invoke its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the petitioner. 34. Section 195 of the Act is as under:- 195. Election notification:- (1) The State Election Commission shall issue the Notification and Schedule for general election and elections for casual vacancies in all Municipalities and Municipal Corporations. The Schedule and the dates on which elections will be conducted, shall be decided, by the State election Commission in concurrence with the State Government, which has to consider matters pertaining to law and order situation, internal security, security personnel, central armed police forces and the logistics of their deployment, availability of staff for election related duties, availability and procurement of election related material and premises for polling and counting, conduct of elections to other legislative and statutory bodies, natural calamities and seasonal conditions including drinking water situation and agricultural season, major fairs and festivals, education calendar and examinations in schools and colleges, likely onset of any epidemic diseases, operations relating to collection of vital statistics like census or any other enumeration, and matters involving public interest and any other administrative exigencies: Provided that in cases of multiple phases, the schedule of each phase shall have a gap of not more than five days from each other. (2) For the purpose of holding elections to fill ordinary or casual vacancies, the State Election Commission shall, by notification under Sections 15 and 16, call upon such date or dates, as may be specified therein, the voters of the Municipalities, to elect ward member in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules and orders, if any, made thereunder. (3) The notification shall specify the time schedule for various stages of the elections to fill the ordinary or casual vacancies, which shall be as follows from the date of election notice referred in sub-section (2): (a) Nomination shall be filled. Within a period of three days (including the day of notice) upto 5.00 p.m. (whether or not it is a holiday) (b) Scrutiny of nominations. Within a period of three days (including the day of notice) upto 5.00 p.m. (whether or not it is a holiday) (b) Scrutiny of nominations. On the fourth day (whether or not it is a holiday) (c) Appeal against rejection of nomination shall be filed, before the District Election Authority or Additional District Election Authority or Deputy District Election Authority as authorized by District Election Authority concerned. On the fifth day upto 5.00 p.m. (whether or not it is a holiday) (d) Disposal of appeal against rejection of nomination by the District Election Authority concerned or Additional District Election Authority or Deputy District Election Authority as authorized by District Election Authority concerned. On the sixth day before 5.00 p.m. (whether or not it is a holiday) (e) Withdrawal of candidatures shall be allowed. On the seventh day upto 3.00 p.m. (whether or not it is a holiday) (f) Publication of final list of contesting candidates. On the seventh day itself, after the withdrawal of candidatures (whether or not it is a holiday) (g) Polling shall be held, wherever necessary. On the fifteenth day (whether or not it is a holiday) (h) Counting of votes and declaration of results. On the date and time appointed by the State Election Commission. (4) The Returning Officer appointed for the purpose of conducting elections to Municipality shall as per the above time schedule specified by the State Election Commission issue the election notice for election of the ward members of Municipality and the time schedule shall commence from that date. (5) The State Election Commission shall issue the election notification for election of the Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson and the time schedule shall commence from that date. 35. A bare perusal of Section 195(1) of the Act clearly reveals that the Commission is empowered to issue “the notification”, and “the schedule”. The use of the article “the” clearly indicates that it refers back to the heading of the provision, namely “election notification”. Therefore, under Section 195(1) of the Act, the Commission has twin powers – (a) to issue “the election notification”, and (b) to issue “the election schedule”. However, there is no indication in the entire provision that the election notification must precede the issuance of the schedule. Therefore, “the schedule” can be issued even prior to the issuance of “the notification”. 36. However, there is no indication in the entire provision that the election notification must precede the issuance of the schedule. Therefore, “the schedule” can be issued even prior to the issuance of “the notification”. 36. Moreover, Section 195(2) of the Act prescribes the modus operandi for bringing it to the notice of the public at large, and for calling them to vote on specific date/dates for the Municipality elections. The modus operandi is through a notification. Therefore, Section 195(2) of the Act uses the words “by notification”. 37. Furthermore, under Section 195(3) of the Act, the notification issued under Section 195(2) of the Act is treated as an “election notice”. Section 195(3) of the Act deals with the election schedule. For, it clearly states that the “notification shall specify the time schedule for various stages of the election”. The said provision also prescribes a proforma of the election schedule to be published in the notification. However, the said proforma is merely illustrative. For, the various stages of election would necessarily include the power to be exercised by the Returning Officer under sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 195 of the Act. 38. The impugned notification and the Schedule annexed thereto are as under:- TELANGANA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION 1st Floor, DTCP Building, Opp: PTI Building, A.C.Guards, Hyderabad-500004. NOTIFICATION No.3038/TSEC-ULBs/2019 Dated 23.12.2019 In exercise of the powers conferred by Articles 243-K and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India, read with Section 195 of the Telangana Municipalities Act, 2019, (Act No.11 of 2019), the State Election Commission, Telangana, hereby, NOTIFIES the “election schedule” for conduct of Ordinary Elections to the Municipalities and Municipal Corporations indicated in the schedule appended to this Notification. By virtue of this notification the Model Code of Conduct shall come into force with immediate effect. Sd/- V.Nagi Reddy State Election Commissioner //Attested// Secretary 1st ORDINARY ELECTIONS TO MUNICIPALITIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ELECTION SCHEDULE Sl.No. ELECTION PROGRAMME ELECTION SCHEDULE 1. Date of issue of Election Notification by SEC 07.01.2020 (Tuesday) 2. (a) Date of issue of election notice by Returning Officer under sub-section 4 of Section 195 of TM Act, 2019 08.01.2020 (Wednesday) (From this date onwards Nominations from 10.30 AM to 5.00 PM) (b) Display of ward wise electoral Rolls of ULBs by Returning Officer under Rule 4 of Telangana Municipalities and Municipal Corporations (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2019 08.01.2020 (Wednesday) 3. Last date for filing Nominations 10.01.2020 (Friday) (Upto 5.00 PM) 4. Date of Scrutiny of Nominations 11.01.2020 (Saturday) (From 11.00 AM onwards) 5. Date of appeal against rejection of nomination before the District Election Authority or Additional District Election Authority/ Deputy District Election Authority as authorized by District Election Authority concerned. 12.01.2020 (Sunday) (Upto 5.00 PM) 6. Date of Disposal of appeal 13.01.2020 (Monday) (Before 5.00 PM) 7. Last date for withdrawal of candidature 14.01.2020 (Tuesday) (Upto 3.00 PM) 8. Date for Publication of final list of contesting candidates 14.01.2020 (Sunday) (After 3.00 PM) 9. Date of Poll 22.01.2020 (Wednesday) (From 7.00 AM to 5.00 PM) 10. Date of Re-Poll, if any 24.01.2020 (Friday) 11. Date of Counting of votes 25.01.2020 (Saturday) (From 8.00 AM onwards) 12. Date of declaration of results Soon after the completion of counting of votes Sd/- V.Nagi Reddy State Election Commissioner //Attested// Secretary 39. A bare perusal of the Notification clearly reveals that it claims to be published while invoking the power under Section 195 of the Act. The Notification nowhere claims that it is being published under Section 195(1) of the Act. Since the Notification deals with “the election schedule” for conduct of ordinary elections to the Municipalities, and publishes “the election schedule” as an Annexure, obviously the said Notification is one issued under Section 195(2) of the Act. Therefore, the Notification is merely an election notice to the public at large, with regard to the “various stages of the election”. It is for this purpose that the “election schedule attached with the notification”, first, contains “the date of the election notification”. It is precisely for this reason that at Serial No. 1, the election schedule reveals the date of issuance of the “election notification”. Then deals with at Serial No. 2, the issuance of election notification by the Returning Officer under sub-section (4) of Section 195 of the Act. It further deals with at Serial No. 2(b), the display of Ward-wise Electoral Rolls of ULBs by Returning Officer, under Rule 4 of the Rules. It further proceeds to outline the dates for filing of the nomination, and for the steps to be taken till the declaration of the results. Hence, the impugned notification is merely a notification issued under Section 195(2) of the Act. It is not an election notification under Section 195(1) of the Act. Therefore, Mr. It further proceeds to outline the dates for filing of the nomination, and for the steps to be taken till the declaration of the results. Hence, the impugned notification is merely a notification issued under Section 195(2) of the Act. It is not an election notification under Section 195(1) of the Act. Therefore, Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, is unjustified in claiming that the impugned notification is not in accordance with Section 195(1) of the Act. 40. Mr. D. Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel, has vehemently pleaded that there is a hot-haste in identification of the SC, ST, BC, and Women voters. However, he has not produced an iota of evidence to prove that merely because the objections were invited, and dealt with within a short period, any prejudice has been caused to anyone. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the High Court to act with reluctance, and not to invoke its power of judicial review unless there is “a clear and strong case for its intervention having been made out by raising the pleas with particulars and precision, and supporting the same by necessary material”. However, in the present case, the petitioner has not submitted any particulars, or with any supporting material to show that due to hot-haste, the interest of the electorate, or of a candidate has been affected prejudicially. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence, the presumption of mala fide or of arbitrariness cannot be drawn by this Court. 41. The case of Fuljit Kaur (supra) is clearly distinguishable on the factual matrix. For, in the said case, the allotment of the residential plot was made within forty-eighty hours of the submission of the application. It is, in these circumstances, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had opined that “when an allotment is made in such a hasty manner, mala fide can be presumed by the Court”. Therefore, the said case does not rush to the rescue of the petitioner. 42. Since the election notification is yet to be issued, as reflected in the impugned notification, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the Rule 14 of the Rules had been violated. Admittedly, by 04.01.2020, the final list of Ward-wise SC, ST, BC and Women voters was to be completed. 42. Since the election notification is yet to be issued, as reflected in the impugned notification, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the Rule 14 of the Rules had been violated. Admittedly, by 04.01.2020, the final list of Ward-wise SC, ST, BC and Women voters was to be completed. Moreover, the reservation of the Wards has been completed prior to 07.01.2020. Therefore, the said contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is clearly untenable. 43. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition, and it is, hereby, dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.