Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1268 (AP)

Shaik Basheerulla v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-09-08

B.KRISHNA MOHAN

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The W.P.No.23228 of 2023 was filed questioning the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 29/8/2023, by the respondent No.2 for conducting the election of the member to the A.P.State Waqf Board in respect of the category of Mutawalli under Sec. 14(1)(b)(iv) of the A.P.State Waqf Act, 1995 leaving other categories as violative of the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995. The interim prayer in the said writ petition is to stay the further course of action pursuant to the impugned notification vide G.O.Ms.No.37 dtd. 29/8/2023 2. The W.P.No.23343 of 2023 was filed questioning the action of the respondent No.1 in issuing the G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 29/8/2023, by the respondent No.2 to conduct election only to the electoral college of Mutawallis under Sec. 14(1)(b)(iv) of the Waqf Act, 1995 without conducting election for the other electoral colleges as violative of the provisions of the Waqf Act,1995. The Interim prayer is also to grant stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.37 dtd. 29/8/2023 pending the writ petition. 3. The W.P.No.23373 of 2023 was filed questioning the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 29/8/2023, by the respondent No.2 for conducting the election for the member of the respondent No.4- Board under the category of Mutawalli under Sec. 14(1)(b)(iv) of the A.P.State Waqf Act, 1995. The interim prayer in the said writ petition is to set aside the G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 29/8/2023 issued by the respondent No.1 pending the writ petition. 4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners; the learned Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4-Waqf Board. Another learned senior counsel Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, appeared for the implead petitioner in I.ANo.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.23228 of 2023 and I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.23343 of 2023 seeking impleadment of the petitioners as party respondents in the writ petitions as well as in the pending IAs. 5. All the counsels advanced their arguments only on the interim applications as the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e., on 9/9/2023. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the "persons interested" within the meaning of Sec. 3(k) of the Waqf Act. The petitioner in the first case is the Mussalli of the Noori Masjid situated at Police Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. 6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the "persons interested" within the meaning of Sec. 3(k) of the Waqf Act. The petitioner in the first case is the Mussalli of the Noori Masjid situated at Police Colony, Bhavanipuram, Vijayawada. The impugned notification issued by the respondent No.2 is not in conformity with the Rules and contrary to the provisions of the Act. There is a schedule for preparation and publication of final voters list. No objections are invited for the voters list. The respondent No.2 only published the Electoral College for the member of the Mutawalli category but not the electoral list as contemplated under Rule 8 of the A.P.State Waqf Rules, 2023. 7. Be that as it may, the learned senior counsel mainly drawn the attention of this court to Rule 11 of the A.P.State Waqf Rules, 2023 issued under Sec. 109 of the Waqf Act, 1995, vide G.O.Ms.No.2 (Minorities Welfare (IDM-I) dtd. 17/3/2023 published in the A.P.Gazette dtd. 21/3/2023, which reads as under: "11. Displaying of lists: The electoral lists obtained under rule 8, 9 and 10 shall be displayed on the notice board of the Election Authority, office of the A.P.State Waqf Board and office of District Minorities Welfare Officer (DMWO) not less than fourteen (14) days before the date of elections and shall be published in Urdu, Telugu and English/local language in the newspapers having circulation in the area." 8. Rule 12 deals with the filing of objections, within seven days by any person aggrieved by the publication of the electoral lists under Rules 8, 9 and 10 for addition, deletion or modification of any name. After incorporating such modification upon considering the objections, the election authority shall publish the final electoral roll not less than seven days before the date of election and such electoral roll shall be final and conclusive list of electors for the election. Rule 13 of the Rules deals with Public notice of intended election. As per Rule 13(1), the election authority subject to the directions of the Government shall publish the notification in the prescribed Form-4(a) in the official gazette fixing the date or specifying the date to elect the members of the Board in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. As per Rule 13(2), the election schedule shall be specified. As per Rule 13(2), the election schedule shall be specified. As per rule 13(3), the election officer shall give public notice of the intended election for the members of the Board in the prescribed Form 4(b) in Urdu, Telugu and English language in the newspapers having circulation in the area. 9. In the common counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 at paragraph 7, it is stated as under: "7. While the prepared electoral list was furnished to the Government for the purpose of publication however the same could not get published and in its place press release as regards the notification of the election schedule was published in the newspapers. A copy of the publication in the newspapers is filed herewith as material papers. The said electoral lists however were not published in the newspapers as required under Rule 11 and however on the intimation of the election authority, the issuance of the election schedule for the purpose of election from amongst the Mutawallis was however got published in the newspapers." 10. Emphasizing the above said statement of the respondents, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though the first portion of the Rule 11 was complied with, the later portion of the publication of the electoral list in Urdu, Telugu and English/local languages in the newspapers having circulation in the area has not been complied with which is mandatory and for the non compliance of the same, the scheduled election dtd. 9/9/2023 cannot be proceeded with. That apart, Rule 13(3) is also not followed. 11. He also refers to the SIASAT News Item Daily dtd. 30/8/2023 with regard to the elections of Mutawalli category for the A.P.State Waqf Board scheduled on 9/9/2023 and the news item of Sakshi dtd. 30/8/2023 with regard to the Board elections as scheduled and other news items dtd. 30/8/2023. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Rule 11 the word used is "shall" for Publication of the Electoral List in the Newspapers as stated above and violation of the same vitiates the election process. 13. 30/8/2023 with regard to the Board elections as scheduled and other news items dtd. 30/8/2023. 12. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Rule 11 the word used is "shall" for Publication of the Electoral List in the Newspapers as stated above and violation of the same vitiates the election process. 13. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents other than the Waqf Board submits that the relevant statutory provisions and the relevant rules were substantially complied with and the mere non-publication of the electoral list in the local newspapers as required above do not vitiate the election process in any manner as it is not fatal to finalise the electoral list after considering the objections. The word used, "shall" in the second portion of the Rule 11 can also be read as "May" and upon compliance of the first portion of the Rule 11, the later portion would become directory only and mere non compliance of the same does not materially alter the election process/results. There were 51 objections received and out of them "30" objections were accepted and prepared the final electoral list for the purpose of conducting the election under the category of Mutawalli. All the voters across the State are having the knowledge of the draft electoral list and final electoral list prepared by the election authority much before the date of election and as such at the instance of these three writ petitions, the further election process cannot be stalled. The petitioners cannot be even treated as "Persons Interested in a Waqf" as per Sec. 3(k) of the Waqf Act, 1995, that too in the matter of election to the Waqf Board for the category of Mutawalli. 14. The petitioner in W.P.No.23343 of 2023 is already a voter and his name is figured in the electoral list of Mutawallis at Sl.No.210. Similarly, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.23373 of 2023 is an eligible voter for participating in the scheduled election. Hence they cannot maintain any grievance for the purpose of these writ petitions. The Government is having discretion even to conduct election for one member of the Waqf Board under the category of Mutawalli and the petitioners cannot insist that there shall be an election for two members. 15. Hence they cannot maintain any grievance for the purpose of these writ petitions. The Government is having discretion even to conduct election for one member of the Waqf Board under the category of Mutawalli and the petitioners cannot insist that there shall be an election for two members. 15. Pursuant to the election notification four nominations were received and withdrawal for nomination time was also over and the polling is scheduled to be held on 9/9/2023 between 11:00 AM to 04:00 PM and the results will be declared thereafter. The earlier terms of the board was expired six months back and the conducting of the elections to the Board is necessitated to carry out the objects of the Waqf Act, 1995. Unless the Board is made functional, the Waqf properties cannot be protected under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. 16. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in: 1) In RAZA BULAND SUGAR CO. LRTD., RAMPUR APPELLANT vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, RAMPUR,(1965) 1 SCC 970. it was observed at paragraph 7,8 and 9 as follows: "7. We shall first consider the ground as to publication and three questions fall to be decided in that behalf: (firstly) is publication as provided in Sec. 13 (3) mandatory or directory, for it is contended on behalf of the respondent that publication under Sec. 131 (3) is merely directory; (secondly), was the publication in this case strictly in the publication was not strictly in accordance with the manner provided in Sec. 94 (3); and (thirdly), if the publication was not strictly in accordance with the manner provided in Sec. 94(3), is the defect curable under Sec. 135 (3)? 8. The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory, inasmuch as it uses the word "shall" as in the present case - is merely directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the provision, have all to be taken into account in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory. 9. ... "The question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative has very frequently arisen in this court, but it has been said that no general rule can be laid down, and that in every case the object of the statute must be looked at ...when the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them, though punishable, not affecting the validity of the acts done." Sec. 135(3) of the U.P. Municipalities Act reads as follows: "A notification of the imposition of a tax under sub-sec. (2) shall be conclusive proof that the tax has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act." 2) In MOHAN SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS, (1997) 9 SCC 132 . it was observed at paragraph 19 as follows: "The two quotations were approved by this Court in State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya (1961) 2 SCR 679 case and law was laid down thus: "When a statute uses the word 'shall', prima facie, it is mandatory, but the court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature the court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow there from, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered." 17. Finally he pleaded that since the election process was already commenced, sought for continuation of the same without there being any interdiction of the same at this stage. 18. The learned senior counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy appearing for the Waqf Board submits that the Rule 13(iii) of the above said Rule is complied with and the impugned G.O.Ms.No.37 dtd. 29/8/2023 was given gazette notification on 30/8/2023. The A.P.Waqf Rules 2023 came into force with effect from 17/3/2023. Sec. 14 of the Waqf Act is not violated. Rule7, Rule 8, Rule 9 and Rule 12 were followed. The mandatory portion of the first part of the Rule 11 was also complied with. Mere non publication of the electoral list in the local newspapers as mentioned in the second portion of the Rule 11 does not vitiate the election process since the purpose of Rule 12 was already achieved and every eligible voter is having the knowledge of the scheduled election dtd. 9/9/2023. Out of the 51 objections, 30 objections were accepted and they are included as eligible voters and final voters list was also prepared much in advance to the scheduled date of election. The persons whose objections were rejected are not the parties before the Hon'ble Court as writ petitioners in these cases and as such these writ petitions shall be treated as frivolous writ petitions and they shall be dismissed in limini. 19. He further contended that as stated supra, Rule 11 has been substantially complied with. The draft publication of voters' list is dtd. 10/8/2023 and the nominations were received on 1/9/2023 to 5/9/2023. Whereas these writ petitions were filed on 4/9/2023 and thereafter questioning the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.37 dtd. 29/8/2023 which includes the schedule of election. 19. He further contended that as stated supra, Rule 11 has been substantially complied with. The draft publication of voters' list is dtd. 10/8/2023 and the nominations were received on 1/9/2023 to 5/9/2023. Whereas these writ petitions were filed on 4/9/2023 and thereafter questioning the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.37 dtd. 29/8/2023 which includes the schedule of election. The Chief Executive Officer of the A.P.State Waqf Board addressed a letter to the election authority dtd. 8/8/2023 informing that after completion of the process, the list of 217 persons eligible to vote to the category (iv) of Sec. 14(1)(b) of the Waqf Act, 1995 with subsequent remarks is herewith enclosed for onward process. 20. He also relies upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court of India reported in: 1) SHAJI K. JOSEPH VS. V. VISWANATH AND OTHERS, (2016) 4 SCC 429 . in the matter of election of member of Dental Council of India, at paragraph 15 it was held that: "15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election programme on 27/1/2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available top Respondent 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Sec. 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly shows the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly shows the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election." 2) In SHRI SANT SADGURU JANARDAN SWAMI (MOINGIRI MAHARAJ) SAHAKARI DUGDHA UTPADAK SANSTHA V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA, (2001) 8 SCC 509 . it was held at paragraphs 9 and 12 as follows: "9. If the contention of the appellants is that there was a breach of rule or certain mandatory provisions of the Rules were not complied with while preparing the electoral roll, the same could be challenged under Rule 81 (d)(iv) of the Rules by means of an election petition. In view that the preparation of electoral roll is part of the election process and if there is any breach of the Rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same can be called in question after the declaration of the result of the election by means of an election petition before the Tribunal. 10. ... 11. ... 12. In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the Managing Committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of the returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the Election Tribunal." 21. Accordingly he also sought for proceeding of the elections as per the schedule in view of the substantial compliance of the Rules and the election process has already been set in motion. 22. And the senior counsel appearing for the implead petitioner in I.A.No.2 of 2023, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu submits that the persons aggrieved can only come before this Hon'ble Court to question the election notification for the Waqf Board. Merely because the petitioners claimed as "Person Interested" under Sec. 3(k) of the Act, no prejudice is caused for them. When the elections are conducted as per the schedule they have no locus standi to question the same. The above said Rule 11 and the Sec. 14 of the Act are complied with. The election process has already been commenced and the election authority gave gazette notification by complying with the provisions of the Act and the Rules substantially and as such no interdiction can be made at this stage. In support of his contention, he also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA vs. SHIVAJI, AIR 1988 SC 61 . wherein it was held as under: "We are very much disturbed by the manner in which the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) has interfered not once but twice with the process of election which was being held under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act,1951. ... Hence even if there was any ground relating to the noncompliance with the provisions of the Act and the Constitution on which the validity of any election process could be questioned, the person interested in questioning the elections has to wait till the election is over and institute a petition in accordance with Sec. 81 of the Act calling in question the election of the successful candidate within forty-five days from the date of election of the returned candidate but not earlier than the date of election. ... ... Having thus dismissed the petition on 01.l0.1987 the Court committed a serious error in entertaining a Review Petition in the very same writ petition on 16/10/1987 and passing an order staying election which had been earlier fixed for 18. l0.1987 till further orders "looking to the mandatory provisions of Sec. 30 of the Representation of the People Act". The High Court tailed to recall to its mind that it was not its concern under Article 226 of the Constitution to rectify any error even if there was an error committed in the process of election at any stage prior to the declaration of the result of the election notwithstanding the fact that the error in question related to a mandatory provision of the statute relating to the conduct of the election If there was any such error committed in the course of the election process the Election Commission had the authority to set it right by virtue of power vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution. ... It has to be stated here that it is not the law that every non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or of the Constitution will vitiate an election. It is only when it is shown that the result of the election was materially affected by such noncompliance the High Court would have jurisdiction to set aside an election in accordance with Sec. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. ..." 23. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the decisions reported in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd.,'s case has no application to the facts of this case as the word used therein was "may" only. In this case under the provisions of the Waqf Act there is no Election Tribunal enabling to go before the same after the elections are over. Hence the remedy lies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only. The "Person interested" can challenge the election process. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2023 dtd. 6/9/2023 reported in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr., wherein at paragraphs 32 and 37 it was observed as follows: "32. The "Person interested" can challenge the election process. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 5707 of 2023 dtd. 6/9/2023 reported in Union Territory of Ladakh & Ors vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference & Anr., wherein at paragraphs 32 and 37 it was observed as follows: "32. The Court would categorically emphasize that no litigant should have even an iota of doubt or an impression (rather, a misimpression) that just because of systemic delay or the matter not being taken up by the Courts resulting in efflux of time the cause would be defeated, and the Court would be rendered helpless to ensure justice to the party concerned. It would not be out of place to mention that this Court can even turn the clock back, if the situation warrants such dire measures. The powers of this Court, if need be, to even restore status quo ante are not in the realm of any doubt. The relief(s) granted in the lead opinion by Hon. Khehar, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was), concurred with by the other 4 learned Judges, in Nabam Rebia and Bamang Felix v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, (2016) 8 SCC 1 is enough on this aspect. We know full well that a 5- Judge Bench in Subhash Desai v Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 607 has referred Nabam Rebia (supra) to a Larger Bench. However, the questions referred to the Larger Bench do not detract from the power to bring back status quo ante. That apart, it is settled that mere reference to a larger Bench does not unsettle declared law. In Harbhajan Singh v State of Punjab, (2009) 13 SCC 608 , a 2-Judge Bench said: "15. Even if what is contended by the learned counsel is correct, it is not for us to go into the said question at this stage; herein cross-examination of the witnesses had taken place. The Court had taken into consideration the materials available to it for the purpose of arriving at a satisfaction that a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 319 of the Code was made out. Only because the correctness of a portion of the judgment in Mohd. The Court had taken into consideration the materials available to it for the purpose of arriving at a satisfaction that a case for exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 319 of the Code was made out. Only because the correctness of a portion of the judgment in Mohd. Shafi [(2007) 14 SCC 544 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 889 : (2007) 4 SCR 1023 : (2007) 5 Scale 611 ] has been doubted by another Bench, the same would not mean that we should wait for the decision of the larger Bench, particularly when the same instead of assisting the appellants runs counter to their contention." (emphasis supplied) 33. ... 34. ... 35. ... 36. ... 37. We would indicate that the restraint, self-imposed, by the Courts as a general principle, laid out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in election matters to the extent that once a notification is issued and the election process starts, the Constitutional Courts, under normal circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a contentious issue. But where issues crop up, indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to disturb a level-playing field between candidates and/or political parties with no justifiable or intelligible basis, the Constitutional Courts are required, nay they are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the Courts have usually maintained a hands-off approach is with the sole salutary objective of ensuring that the elections, which are a manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution thereof. In the context of providing appropriate succour to the aggrieved litigant at the appropriate time, the learned Single Judge acted rightly. In all fairness, we must note that the learned ASG, during the course of arguments, did not contest the power per se of the High Court to issue the directions it did, except that the same amounted to denying the Appellants their discretion. As stated hereinbefore, we are satisfied that in view of the 1968 Order, the Appellants' discretion was not unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968 Order." 24. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and upon consideration of the rival contentions and submissions, it is to be seen that the election notification was already issued under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.37, dtd. 29/8/2023. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, and upon consideration of the rival contentions and submissions, it is to be seen that the election notification was already issued under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.37, dtd. 29/8/2023. The locus of the petitioners and nonpublication of the electoral list in the newspapers as per the 2nd portion of Rule 11 whether it is fatal to proceed with the impugned election notification and whether it is materially altering the result of the elections have to be gone into in the main writ petition after considering the matter elaborately, soon after completion of the pleadings from all the sides. It is not the case of the petitioners that due to non-publication of the electoral list in the newspapers deprived either the petitioners or some other eligible voters from participating in the scheduled election. It is also not disputed with regard to the notifying of the electoral list in all the offices of the Waqf Board and the election authority across the State in compliance with the first portion of the Rule 11 of the above said Rules. There is no denial of receiving the objections and considering the same as per Rule 12 of the above said Rules. As seen above the impugned notification was issued under Rule 13 of the said Rules and publication was made in all the newspapers. Therefore in substantial compliance of the Rules and the provisions of the Act and upon specifically considering the objections, the final voters list was prepared much before the date of the impugned notification. After the election process started, these writ petitions were filed by the voters in the list who are the non contesting candidates in the said elections. Hence the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioners to stall the elections at this stage under the impugned notification as every arrangement was made to carry out the remaining election process smoothly. Even if the election is proceeded with, no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioners as the main writ petitions are kept pending for final adjudication. 25. For the foregoing reasons and the settled proposition of law as stated supra, the scheduled election cannot be stayed at this stage. 26. In the result, the election scheduled to be held on 9/9/2023 under the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 25. For the foregoing reasons and the settled proposition of law as stated supra, the scheduled election cannot be stayed at this stage. 26. In the result, the election scheduled to be held on 9/9/2023 under the impugned notification in G.O.Ms.No.37, Minorities Welfare (IDM-I), dtd. 29/8/2023, shall go on and the result of the said election is subject to outcome of these writ petitions and the elected member shall be informed of the same. 27. These interlocutory applications are disposed of.