JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for Election Commission of India and the other counsel for the private respondents. 2. The genesis of the dispute can be traced to an order of the Election Commission of India whereby a direction granted by this Court to consider the representation by one of the parties to the proceedings has been acted upon and pursuant to which the Election Commission of India proceeded to freeze the symbol allotted to one of the appellants. 3. The case of the appellants is that the symbol was allotted to them by the returning officer and thereafter, on representation by the rival political party, the Election Commission of India has taken up the action that was impugned before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not been inclined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the same is not maintainable in view of the specific bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. In the meanwhile, as postal ballots had already been taken up for counting, this Bench deemed it fit not to interfere with the process and thereafter, the election process was concluded. The matter was heard by this Bench on multiple dates and on 05.08.2024, this Court passed the following order : “Heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the learned Senior Counsel representing the Election Commission of India. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Election Commission of India would submit that the complaint against the exercise of power by the E.C.I., under the Election Symbols Order, 1968, would constitute an issue that can be dealt with, by the Election Tribunal, in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act and that the same has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roop Lal Sathi Vs. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487 and take the Court to paragraph Nos.17 and 19 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “17. Nachhattar Singh Gill, (1982) 3 SCC 487 and take the Court to paragraph Nos.17 and 19 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “17. In our judgment, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Symbols Order was not an order made under the Act and therefore, the change of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer in compliance with the directions issued by the Election Commission, even if it was in breach of paragraph 13 thereof, did not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, or the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act and therefore the matter fell outside the ambit of Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. It is however urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the Symbols Order was not an order made under the Act. Emphasis is laid on the words ‘under the Act’ occurring in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. We are afraid; the argument is too tenuous to be accepted. The Symbols Order was issued by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution in exercise of its undoubted powers of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of all elections to Parliament and legislature of every State. It is also relatable to Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules framed by the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Section 169 of the Act. Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules provides that every nomination paper presented under Section 33 of the Act shall be in Forms 2-A to 2-E, as may be appropriate. Forms 2-A and 2-B require the candidate to choose symbol. Under Rule 5 (1) the Election Commission by notification may specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates at elections to Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies. Under Rule 10 (4) the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of symbols expressed by contesting candidates and “subject to any general or special direction issued by the Election Commission” allot different symbols to different candidates. The allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer is final under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 except where it is inconsistent with any directions issued by the Election Commission in that behalf in which case the Election Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as it thinks fit. 19. The allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer is final under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 except where it is inconsistent with any directions issued by the Election Commission in that behalf in which case the Election Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as it thinks fit. 19. As to the second question there can be no doubt whatever that the High Court was not justified in directing that the averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition be deleted on the ground that there was nondisclosure of material facts sufficient to give rise to a cause of action under Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act.” The stand of the Election Commission of India, would be better appreciated if, the same is placed before the Court by way of an affidavit of the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, on behalf of the respondent No.1. List the appeals on 13.08.2024.” 4. Pursuant to the above order, an affidavit came to be filed into Court. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the deponent has filed it by way of an additional counter affidavit and deposed on behalf of the Election Commission of India and he is authorised to do so. The said affidavit reads as under : “3. It is respectfully submitted that, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh (supra 1), violation of the Symbols Order falls under the ambit of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It was held as follows: “12. In this appeal, two questions arise. First of these is whether any breach of paragraph 13 or 18 of the Symbols Order amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, or the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act and therefore the change of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer in compliance with the directions of the Election Commission was a matter which fell within the purview of section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. The second is whether it was incumbent on the appellant before filing the election petition to find out the circumstances in which, and the reasons for which, the Election Commission issued necessary instructions under paragraph 18 of the Symbols Order; and if so, whether failure to disclose such facts amounts to nondisclosure of material facts i.e. an incomplete cause of action under section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act and therefore the averments in paragraphs 4 to 18 of the election petition were liable to be struck out under Order VI, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 13. As to the first question, there can be no doubt whatever that the Symbols Order is an order made under the Act. Under Article 324 of the Constitution, the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under the Constitution, vests in the Election Commission. The Act is a law made by Parliament under Article 327 of the Constitution to provide for the conduct of elections to the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. 14. Sub-section (1) of section 169 of the Act provides that the Central Government may, after consulting the Election Commission, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the rules framed by the Central Government under sub-section (1) may provide for all or any of the matters enumerated therein. In exercise of the powers under section 169 of the Act, the Central Government made the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 for the purpose of regulating the mode of holding elections to the Houses of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of every State. In exercise of the powers under section 169 of the Act, the Central Government made the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 for the purpose of regulating the mode of holding elections to the Houses of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of every State. Rule 5 of the Conduct of Elections Rules requires the Election Commission to specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates in parliamentary and assembly elections and the restrictions to which that choice shall be subject ….. 15. The Election Symbols (Reservation & Allotment) Order, 1968 was issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution read with Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and all other powers enabling in that behalf. The primary object and purpose of the Symbols Order, as the long title and the preamble show, is to provide for specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in parliamentary and assembly constituencies, for the recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected there- with. The purpose and object of the Symbols Order as well as the source of power under which the Order was issued is brought out in the preamble which reads: Whereas the superintendence, direction and control of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State are vested by the Constitution of India in the Election Commission of India. And, whereas it is necessary and expedient to provide in the interests of purity of election to the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly of every State and in the interests of the conduct of such elections in a fair and efficient manner, for the specification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols for the recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by article 324 of the Constitution read with rule 5 and rule 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Election Commission of India hereby makes the following Order." ….. 17. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by article 324 of the Constitution read with rule 5 and rule 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the Election Commission of India hereby makes the following Order." ….. 17. In our judgment, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the Symbols Order was not an order made under the Act and therefore, the change of allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer in compliance with the directions issued by the Election Commission, even if it was in breach of paragraph 13 thereof, did not amount to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, or the Act, or any rules or orders made under the Act and therefore the matter fell outside the ambit of Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. It is however urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the Symbols Order was not an order made under the Act. Emphasis is laid on the words ‘under the Act’ occurring in Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. We are afraid; the argument is too tenuous to be accepted. The Symbols Order was issued by the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution in exercise of its undoubted powers of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of all elections to Parliament and legislature of every State. It is also relatable to Rules 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules framed by the Central Government in exercise of their powers under Section 169 of the Act. Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules provides that every nomination paper presented under Section 33 of the Act shall be in Forms 2-A to 2-E, as may be appropriate. Forms 2-A and 2-B require the candidate to choose symbol. Under Rule 5 (1) the Election Commission by notification may specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates at elections to Parliamentary and Assembly constituencies. Under Rule 10 (4) the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of symbols expressed by contesting candidates and “subject to any general or special direction issued by the Election Commission” allot different symbols to different candidates. Under Rule 10 (4) the Returning Officer shall consider the choice of symbols expressed by contesting candidates and “subject to any general or special direction issued by the Election Commission” allot different symbols to different candidates. The allotment of symbols by the Returning Officer is final under sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 except where it is inconsistent with any directions issued by the Election Commission in that behalf in which case the Election Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as it thinks fit. …. 18…… The Symbols Order made by the Election Commission in exercise of its power under Art 324 of the Constitution read with rs. 5 and 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, are in the nature of general directions issued by the Election Commission to regulate the mode of allotment of symbols to the contesting candidates. It is a matter of common knowledge that elections in our country are fought on the basis of symbols. It must but logically follow as a necessary corollary that the Symbols Order is an order made under the Act. Any other view would be destructive of the very fabric of our system of holding parliamentary and assembly constituency elections in the country on the basis of adult suffrage. 4. In view of the aforesaid position of law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is submitted that violation of Symbols Order, if any, can also be taken as a ground in the Election Petition. 5. It is pertinent to submit that the appellant has already filed election petition before this Hon'ble Court. There could be a dichotomy of opinion if the same issue is considered by two different courts, which has been deemed impermissible by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court held that there cannot be a two pronged attack-one during the election and another after the election-and that all challenges must be raised only by filing an election petition after the election. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may not entertain the present appeal and dismiss it on the grounds of non-maintainability, in view of the specific constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.” 5. Sri M.V. Raja Raam, learned counsel, would submit that certain issues were arisen and that the issues need to be adjudicated by this Court. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court may not entertain the present appeal and dismiss it on the grounds of non-maintainability, in view of the specific constitutional bar under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India.” 5. Sri M.V. Raja Raam, learned counsel, would submit that certain issues were arisen and that the issues need to be adjudicated by this Court. He would submit that an issue arises as to whether the Election Commission could have acted on the representation of the registered un-recognized political party and proceeded to freeze the symbol that has already been allotted in a constituency where the registered un-recognized political party has not set up a candidate to contest the election? Secondly, the next point that was canvassed is whether the Election Commission could have sat in appeal over the orders of the Returning Officer and Competent Authority to allot the symbol and pass an order freezing the allotment of the symbol, when the allotment order was not found to be in violation of any provision of law or any direction issued by the Election Commission of India? 6. In the light of the affidavit filed now and in the light of the clarifications given by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Election Commission of India, we are of the considered opinion that the said issues can also be dealt with by the Election Tribunal. In that view of the matter, we request the Election Tribunal to frame an appropriate issue if so canvassed by the petitioner. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to leave all contentions for examination and determination by the Election Tribunal and liberty is reserved in favour of the appellants to move before the Tribunal by way of appropriate applications, either for amending the pleading or for formulating issues and so also the list of witnesses and documents. 7. Accordingly, with the above observations, these writ appeals are disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.