ORDER Kiranmayee Mandava, J. - The proceedings under challenge in the present Writ Petition are the proceedings of the 1st respondent issued in connection with the counting of postal ballot of 'voters on election duty'. 2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking following reliefs: 'issue Writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vague, ultra vires, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 326 of the Constitution of India, violative of the preamble of the Constitution of India, violative of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, violative of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and violative of Lr. No.464/Counting Process/2023-EPS dated 19.07.2023 that is issued by the Election Commission of India, and without jurisdiction; and consequently, set aside Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 that are passed by the Respondent No.2 herein; and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.' 3. The petitioner subsequently filed IA seeking amendment of the prayer. The said IA was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2024. The amended prayer reads as under: 'issue Writ, order or direction; more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 herein and Lr. No. 464/AP/SOU3/2024 dated 30.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, vague, ultra vires, violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (a) and 326 of the Constitution of India, violative of the preamble of the Constitution of India, violative of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, violative of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and violative of Lr. No.464/Counting Process/ 2023 - EPS dated 19.07.2023 that is issued by the Election Commission of India, and without jurisdiction; and consequently, set aside Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/2024 dated 25.05.2024 and Memo No.5369/Elecs.D2/A2/2024 dated 27.05.2024 that are passed by the Respondent No.2 herein and Lr. No. 464 / AP / SOU3 / 2024 dated 30.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1; and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. No. 464 / AP / SOU3 / 2024 dated 30.05.2024 issued by Respondent No. 1; and pass such order or other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." 4. Heard Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel and Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Siva Darshan, learned counsel for 1st and 2nd respondents and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel for impleaded 3rd respondent. 5. Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner contends that the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024 are in derogation of the statutory provisions of Rule 54 (A) and Rule 27 (F) of The Conduct of Election Rules,1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961') and he relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216. 6. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P.Veera Reddy contends that aggrieved by the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024, the Writ Petition is being filed. It is stated that as the proceedings dated 25.05.2024 and 27.05.2024 were subsequently withdrawn by the 2nd respondent and the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.05.2024 came to be issued, the learned counsel represents that thus, they have filed an IA seeking amendment of the prayer in the Writ Petition challenging the proceedings dated 30.05.2024, and that the said IA was allowed by this Court (3rd Vacation Bench). The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 1st respondent has no locus standi to issue the impugned proceedings, in as much as in terms of the provisions of Section 28 of The Representation of the People Act,1950 (for short 'R.P.Act, 1950) and the provisions of Section 169 of The Representation of the People Act 1951 (for short 'R.P.Act, 1951), it is the Central Government, which, in consultation with the Election Commission can make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. And the Rules thus, if any, made are to be placed before each House of the Parliament. 7. He argues that the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent are in derogation of the provisions of R.P.Act,1950 & 1951 and Rules,1961. And the Rules thus, if any, made are to be placed before each House of the Parliament. 7. He argues that the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent are in derogation of the provisions of R.P.Act,1950 & 1951 and Rules,1961. Referring to Rule 54A of the Rules, it is contended that the direction of the 1st respondent through its proceeding dated 30.05.2024 stating that in the declaration form in Form 13A, even if the attesting officer does not put his name and designation or does not put his seal, shall be considered as valid one, is not inconsonance with the provisions of the Rules. 8. It is contended that Form 13A specifically provides for attestation of the signature of the voter, and mention of all necessary details of the attesting officer i.e., attestor's name, address and designation. It is contended that as categorically provided under the Rules, 1961, the declaration Form has to be signed by the voter in presence of, and get the same attested by an officer to whom he is personally known or identified. It is his further contention that a declaration form which does not contain the attestor's name, address and designation, as specified under Form 13A cannot be treated as a valid declaration form and in the absence of a valid declaration form, the ballot paper contained therein has to be rejected. 9. Further, referring to the provisions of Rule 54A of the Rules, the learned Senior Counsel contends that if, Form 13A is not duly signed or attested, the returning officer shall reject the ballot paper. He contends that, in the light of the said legal position, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent stating that Form 13A shall be considered valid even if the same does not contain the name and designation of the attesting officer, are not in consonance with the statute and he further contends that the said proceedings are issued only in respect of State of Andhra Pradesh and to no other States in India. Thus, prays for set aside of the same. 10. Thus, prays for set aside of the same. 10. In oppugnation, the learned Senior Counsel Sri Avinash Desai appearing for Sri Siva Darshan, the learned counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, placed before us a letter dated 25.05.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent seeking clarification as to whether the postal ballot paper of an elector can be considered valid, if the declaration in Form 13A is merely signed by the attesting officer without mentioning name and designation and without his/her seal. He contends that pursuant to the said letter of the 2nd respondent dated 25.05.2024, the 1st respondent has issued the impugned proceedings. And that the impugned proceedings are not in derogation to any of the provisions of the statute. Referring to Part III of the Rules, 1961, he contends that Rule 18 specifies the persons who are entitled to 'vote by post' at an election in parliamentary or assembly constituency. Referring to the provisions of Rules 18,18A, 24, and 24(c), he contends that the voting by postal ballot consists of different categories of voters, and 'voters on election duty' is one of the said category. And those voters who are on election duty posted at facilitation centres are entitled to vote in the manner provided under Rule 24 of the Rules, 1961. He further referring to the instructions issued by the 1st respondent dated 31.10.2023, more specifically the clauses 14.11 to 14.14 contends that facilitation centres have been set up for voting by the 'voters on election duty' and that they have to vote at such facilitation centres and not in any other manner and the entire procedure is a fool-proof method and the entire voting process at facilitation centres is also videographed. He further contends that Rule 54A (4) provides for counting of votes received by post and provides for circumstances under which the postal ballot can be rejected. Only under the said specified circumstances the ballot can be rejected. He, further referring to the provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv) of the R.P.Act,1951 contends that dispute raised in the writ petition is in the nature of an election dispute and that the petitioner has got a remedy of filing a petition under the provision of Section 80 of the R.P.Act,1951. In support of his contention he relies on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. In support of his contention he relies on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: 1. Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, (1978) 1 Supreme Court Cases 405 2. N.P.Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and others, (1952) 1 Supreme Court Cases 94 11. The learned counsel thus prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 12. In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel Sri Avinash Desai, Sri P.Veera Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the instructions of the authority cannot run contrary to the provisions of the statute and the Rules, 1961. In the absence of any rule making power vested in it, the 1st respondent cannot issue guidelines or clarifications or instructions in derogation of the statute and the guidelines thus issued, if any, are liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions Sri P.Veera Reddy relies on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. i) Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 216, ii) V.A.Shabeer Vs. P.A.Niamathulla, (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 295 iii) Rajesekhar Gogoi Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 2313 iv) Sharif-ud-Din Vs.Abdul Gani Lone, AIR 1980 SUPREME COURT 303 v) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Vs. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and others, (2013) 5 Supreme Court Cases 427 vi) Digvijay Mote Vs. Union of India and others, (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 175 13. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, appearing for the implead respondent contends that the proceedings of the 1st respondent are in no way derogatory to the provisions of the statute. 14. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of all the learned Senior Counsels. 15. The point for consideration in the Writ Petition is (a) whether the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.05.2024 are in derogation of the statutory provisions of the Rules,1961? And (b) whether the dispute raised in the Writ Petition would amount to an election dispute within the realm of Chapter II of the R.P Act,1951. 16. Chapter II of the R.P Act,1951 deals with the presentation of Election Petitions to the High Court and Chapter III, consisting of Sections 86 to 107, deals with the trial of such Election Petitions: The provisions of Section 80 of R.P.ACT,1951, read as under: '80. 16. Chapter II of the R.P Act,1951 deals with the presentation of Election Petitions to the High Court and Chapter III, consisting of Sections 86 to 107, deals with the trial of such Election Petitions: The provisions of Section 80 of R.P.ACT,1951, read as under: '80. Election petitions-No election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of this Part.' The provisions of Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv) of R.P. Act, 1951 read as follows: '100. Grounds for declaring election to be void- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of [the High Court] is of opinion- (a) ----------- (b) (c) (d) That the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candidate, has been materially affected- (i) (ii) - (iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void, or (iv) by any non-complaince with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act' 17. Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv) provides that the High Court, upon the trial of an Election Petition, comes to a conclusion that the election of a returned candidate has been materially affected owing to the fact of improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void, or by any non-compliance with the provisions of the constitution or of this Act, or of any rules or orders made under this Act, can declare the election to be void. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, observed as under: 'Knowing the supreme significance of speedy elections in our system the framers of the Constitution have, by implication postponed all election disputes to election petitions and tribunals. In harmony with this scheme Section 100 of the Act has been designedly drafted to embrace all conceivable infirmities which may be urged. To make the project fool -proof Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) has been added to absolve everything left over. The court has in earlier rulings pointed out that Section 100 is exhaustive of all grievances regarding an election.' 19. To make the project fool -proof Section 100 (1) (d) (iv) has been added to absolve everything left over. The court has in earlier rulings pointed out that Section 100 is exhaustive of all grievances regarding an election.' 19. In the light of the above principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, we hold that the issue raised in the Writ Petition would squarely fall within the clauses of Section 100(1)(d)(iii)&(iv), amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Chapter II of R.P.Act, 1951. 20. While seeking interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the reliance is placed by both the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Election Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others, wherein it was observed as under: '32. 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 sub-serves 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 courts 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.' 21. In the facts of the present case, as seen from the averments in the writ affidavit, no malafide action on the part of the 1st respondent is attributed, in issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2024. The letter issued by the 1st respondent cannot be considered as an arbitrary order for it to fall within the principles laid down by the Apex court in the case of Ashok Kumar. Apart from that, the impugned proceedings do not seem to explicitly contravene Rule 54A of the Rules, 1961 to interdict the procedure of counting of votes at this stage. 22. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute raised in the present case would fall under the domain of Chapter II of R.P.Act,1951 and the petitioners should challenge the impugned proceedings in a properly constituted election petition. It is further observed that in case of any such remedy being availed by the petitioners, the observations made herein above will not come in the way of deciding the petition filed under Section 80 of the R.P.Act,1951. 23. It is further observed that in case of any such remedy being availed by the petitioners, the observations made herein above will not come in the way of deciding the petition filed under Section 80 of the R.P.Act,1951. 23. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue remedies in a properly constituted election petition. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.