Kerala High Court
Sri.T.M.Rasheed vs The State Of Kerala on 8 November, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 611, (2019) 4 KER LT 891
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.28034 OF 2019(D)
PETITIONER:
SRI.T.M.RASHEED,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O MEERANNAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA-686 121.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE
SRI.P.PRIJITH
SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA
SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE
SRI.MANJUNATH MENON
SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 THE RETURNING OFFICER,
M 61 M 64 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY,
PROJECT OFFICER, ITDP, KANJIRAPPALLY MINI CIVIL
STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY-686 507.
4 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY,
ERATTUPETTA P.O.,KOTTAYAM-686 021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
5 V.M. SIRAJ,
VETTIKKAL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O.ERATTUPETTA-686 121.
6 T.M. LAILA PAREED @ T.M. LAILA,
EDATHIKUNNEL (H), KADUVAMOOZHI, ERATTUPETTA-686 121
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019
-2-
R2 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
R4 BY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, ERATTUPETTA
MUNICIPALITY
R6 BY ADV. SRI.SALIM V.S.
SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).28771/2019(V), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.28771 OF 2019(V)
PETITIONER:
V.M. SIRAJ,
AGED 43 YEARS,
VETTIKKAL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O,
ERATTUPETTA 686 121
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
SRI.P.E.SAJAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTION COMMISSION,
CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, LMS JUNCTION, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 033,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
3 THE RETURNING OFFICER, M.61,
M64 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, PROJECT OFFICER,
ITDP, KANJIRAPPALLY MINI CIVIL STATION,
KANJIRAPALLY 686 507
4 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY,
ERATTUPETTA.P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 021,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019
-4-
5 T.M.RASHEED
S/O. MEERANNAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MADACKAL P.O, ERATTUPETTA 686 121
6 T.M.LAILA PAREED @ T.M.LAILA
EDATHIKUNNEL HOUSE, KUDUVAMOOZHI,
ERATTUPETTA 686 121
R1 BY SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMM
R4 BY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW, SC, ERATTUPETTA
MUNICIPALITY
SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.11.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).28034/2019(D), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019
-5-
"C.R."
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).28034/2019, WP(C).28771/2019 ] Dated this the 8th day of November 2019 The elections to the chairperson of the Erattupetta Municipality was conducted by the State Election Commission in a meeting of its councillors held on 16.10.2019.
2. Three persons offered themselves as candidates, namely Sri.T.M.Rasheed, Sri.V.M.Siraj and Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed.
3. In the voting that ensued, Sri.T.M.Rasheed secured twelve votes, while Sri.V.M.Siraj secured eleven and Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed secured three.
4. The Returning Officer for the election announced that Sri.T.M.Rasheed is the successful candidate; but he was thereupon accosted by various other members, including WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -6- Sri.V.M.Siraj, alleging that the said announcement is illegal and unlawful, since it contravenes Rule 8(7)(b) of the Kerala Municipality (Election of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter refers to as 'the Rules' for short).
5. As per the afore Rule, when there are more than two candidates and if no candidate obtains votes more than the total number of votes obtained by all the other candidates after the voting, then the candidate who obtained the least number of votes will have to be eliminated and voting will need to be repeated among the remaining candidates in the fray.
6. On being aware of this, the Returning Officer appears to have suspended the meeting and to have intimated the Election Commission through his report. In the said report, he says that he made an attempt to continue with the meeting but WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -7- that he was unable to do so because, by then, many members had left and the others created a pandemonium.
7. The afore narration is an apercus of the factual circumstances presented in the two writ petitions, which I am considering herein. These two petitions require to be considered together because they have been filed by opposing candidates and whose contentions are inter- layered, though contrarian to each other.
8. W.P.(C) No. 28034 of 2019 has been filed by Sri.T.M.Rasheed seeking a declaration that he has been validly elected as the Chairperson of Erattupetta Municipality; alternatively impelling a challenge to Rule 8(7)
(b) of the Rules, contending it to be ultra-vires the Constitution of India and being beyond legislative capacity.
9. While so, W.P.(C) No.28771 of 2019 WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -8- was filed by Sri.V.M.Siraj with the prayer that the State Election Commission be directed to call for fresh elections, through a new notification to be issued, under Section 12(5) of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short); with an adjunct prayer that Sri.T.M.Rasheed be not declared as having been validly elected in the meeting held on 16.10.2019.
10. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.P.Martin Jose, learned counsel appearing for Sri.T.M.Rasheed; Sri.P.C.Sasidharan assisted by Sri.P.E.Sajal, learned counsel appearing for Sri.V.M.Siraj; Sri.V.S.Saleem, learned counsel appearing for Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed, who has been arrayed as a respondent in both these cases; Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learning Standing Counsel for the Election Commission and the Returning Officer and WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -9- Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, learning Standing Counsel appearing for Erattupetta Municipality.
11. As I have indicated above, the essential points of departure between the rival parties are whether Sri.T.M.Rasheed is entitled to be declared as being elected; or whether further processes are required to be taken by the Election Commission - either to notify fresh election or to continue from where it was stopped earlier.
12. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.T.M.Rasheed, submits that since, pending this lis, the Election Commission has taken a decision, which is evident from their Order No.SEC-568-2019-B3 dated 31.10.2019, to conduct the next phase of elections by convening a new meeting in continuation of the meeting held on 16.10.2019, his client is accepting the same and is giving up WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -10- all contentions raised in W.P.(C) No.28034 of 2019. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, prays that the Election Commission be directed to convene a meeting of all the councillors and to conduct a polling between his client Sri.T.M.Rasheed and Sri.V.M.Siraj, so as to finally conclude the election process in terms of law.
13. In refutation of the above, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for Sri.V.M.Siraj - petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28771 of 2019, began his submissions drawing my attention to Section 12(5) of the Act, which reads as under:
"Where the Chairperson or the Deputy Chairperson could not be elected at an election conducted in accordance with this Act, a fresh election [shall be conducted within forty-five days] for the election of the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson, as the case may be."
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -11-
14. The learned counsel submitted that therefore, it is ineluctable from the afore extracted provision that where the Chairperson could not be elected in an election, the only option available to the Election Commission is to call for a fresh one by issuing a new notification. He then took me through the various provisions of the Rules to contend vehemently that the Election Commission cannot now convene a new meeting in continuation of the one held on 16.10.2019, because this would cause a travesity of democracy, since the free will of the Councillors would be severely influenced by these proceedings.
15. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, thereafter, relied upon the judgments of the Honorable Supreme Court in A.C.Jose Vs. Sivan Pillai and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 656], Kuldip Nayar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [(2006) 7 WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -12- SCC 1] and Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Cheif Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others [(1978) 1 SCC 405], to assert that the Election Commission cannot traverse beyond the statutory provisions or take decisions as they please, particularly when there are statutory provisions in place regulating and controlling their jurisdiction. The learned counsel thus reiteratingly predicates that since Section 12(5) of the Act and Rule 8 of the Rules make it clear that if a candidate cannot be elected in a meeting convened for election, then the only way forward is to have a fresh election on the strength of a new notification.
16. In answer to the above, Sri.Murali Purushothaman, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Election Commission, submitted that, as is manifest from the Rules, there is a vast difference between convening of a meeting for an WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -13- election and conduct of an election itself. The learned Standing Counsel submits that while a process of election may require more than one meeting for various reasons; the whole process together will be construed as one election. He says that this is irrefutable from the manner in which various other provisions of the Rules are framed, particularly Rule 5 relating to the quorum, wherein it is specifically postulated that if there is no quorum at one meeting, then the same shall be postponed to the next working day, so that the elections can then be concluded. He added that even in the Election Notification it has been specified that if, for any reason, elections cannot be concluded in a particular meeting, the Election Commission reserves to itself the right to conduct a new meeting to complete the said process in terms of law.
17. Sri.Murali Purushothaman, thereafter, relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abu WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -14- Kunhimuhammad Vs. Returning Officer, Tirurangadi Grama Panchayat and Others [2009 (2) KHC 1001] and submitted that the facts noticed by the learned Judge therein is in pari materia with the facts involved in these cases and that the findings recorded in it are as under:
"The purity of the electoral process has to be ensured and the first among the salutary requirements is to ensure that the election is held in the meeting held for such purpose. That process culminates only by the declaration and publication of the result. Therefore, the meeting which commenced on 19/05/2009 and was adjourned, has to start from the stage at which it was adjourned and that meeting has to be completed by the declaration of the result on the basis of the ballot papers which are in the safe custody of the Returning Officer and available, as of now, in a sealed cover with the learned standing counsel for the Commission. None of the parties has raised any allegation against the Returning Officer except as regards the attributes made with reference to the ballot paper that was issued to the third WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -15- respondent. Therefore, such declaration of result will only result in the completion of the election in furtherance of the proceedings already commenced."
The learned Standing Counsel then submitted that the Election Commission has now taken a decision, through Order No. SEC-568-2019-B3 dated 31.10.2019, proposing to conduct another meeting to complete the process of election from among Sri.T.M.Rasheed and V.M.Siraj, which is as per the mandate of Rule 8(7)(b) of the Rules; and prayed that it be allowed to do so.
18. After Sri.Murali Purushothaman made the afore submissions, Sri. P.C.Sasidharan interjected to say that, in fact, the decision of the Election Commission now referred to, has been challenged by his client, carrying an amendment to W.P.(C) No.28771 of 2019 and submitted that the said order is perverse and illegal, because the Election Commission appears to have arrogated to itself certain powers, virtually deeming them WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -16- to be inherent, which are not available to them; and therefore, that this Court may not place any credence on the said order. The learned counsel thus beseeched this Court to take a decision in these writ petitions without adverting to the decision now taken by the Election Commission.
19. I have considered the afore submissions very carefully and have assessed and evaluated it against the materials available.
20. The majority of the facts, which remain virtually undisputed, guides me to the prima facie impression that the parties are not in variance with the manner in which the meeting was conducted on 16.10.2019. The first round of voting certainly took place and Sri.T.M.Rasheed obtained twelve votes, while V.M.Siraj and Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed obtained eleven and three respectively. Obviously, therefore, going by Rule 8 of the Rules, particularly Sub Section (7) WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -17- thereof, the Returning Officer ought to have then proceeded to the next stage of voting, which should have been between Sri.T.M.Rasheed and Sri.V.M.Siraj alone, after eliminating Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed. A reading of this Rule would be gainful, for which reason, I reproduce it as under:
Rule 8(7)"The Retuning Officer shall, after the completion of voting, [count the ballot papers in the presence of the Councillors and declare as to, for which candidate each Councillor had marked vote and thereafter count and determine the votes obtained by each candidate] and declare the results of the election in accordance with the following manner:-
(a) The Returning Officer shall, if there are only two contesting candidates, declare the candidate obtaining most valid votes as elected and in the event of both candidates obtaining equal valid votes draw lots in the meeting and declare the person whose name is fist drawn as elected.
[(aa) In case where there are more than two contesting candidates and if one WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -18- candidate obtains more votes than the total number of votes obtained by all other candidates together then the person who thus obtained more votes shall be declared elected.]
(b) If there are more than two contesting candidates and in the first voting no candidate obtains votes more than the total number of votes obtained by all other candidates, then, the candidates who has obtained the least votes shall be eliminated from the election and thus the voting shall be repeated by eliminating the candidate obtaining the least votes in each voting until a candidate obtains more valid votes than the remaining candidate or the total number of votes obtained by the remaining candidates, as the case may be and declare the candidate obtaining more votes as elected.
(c) The Returning Officer, shall, if two or more candidates obtain equal number of votes and one among them is to be eliminated under clause (b) for deciding which candidates is to be eliminated among such candidates obtaining equal number of votes, draw lots and eliminate the person whose name is first drawn."
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -19-
21. Going by the unmistakable tenor of the Rule afore extracted, the Returning Officer could not have declared the result of the elections in favour of Sri.T.M.Rasheed at this stage, because there were more than two candidates in the fray.
22. Therefore, when the Returning Officer was statutorily incapacitated from declaring elections at that stage, it would be impossible to hold that there has been any valid declaration in favour of Sri.T.M.Rasheed and obviously, therefore, his prayer - that he must be declared elected - cannot be countenanced by this Court. This is more so because it is now expressly conceded by all sides, even by Sri.T.M.Rasheed, that the statutory declaration of the results, as per Rule 10 of the Rules, which stipulates that the Returning Officer must publish it in the notice board, had not been done.
WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -20-
23. In any event of the matter, I would not require to delve on this issue any further since Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel, submits that his client has given up this contention.
24. That being so, the sole surviving forensic aspect in these cases is as to the course forward with respect to the election to the Chairperson of Erattupetta Municipality.
25. When one adverts carefully to the materials available, it is rendered doubtless that the Returning Officer appears to have been under a wrong impression, with respect to the manner of conduct of elections when there are more than two candidates; and he seems to have announced the name of Sri.T.M.Rasheed as having been validly elected, but did not declare it as per Rule 10. Thereafter, on being aware that he made a mistake, he attempted to convene the WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -21- meeting again, which was apparently objected to by various councillors, leading to a pandemonium. The Returning Officer thereupon appears to have reported this to the Election Commission, informing them of his predicament and seeking their guidance.
26. It is at this stage that both these writ petitions have been filed, with the prayers which have already been enumerated above.
27. Therefore, when I consider the dialectical contentions of the learned counsel on either side, the singular issue that really deserves to engage my mind is whether the Election Commission must now be allowed to convene a new meeting for the purpose of completing the elections that was attempted on 16.10.2019; or whether they should be directed to publish a new election notification, leading to new elections under the mandate of Section 12(5) WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -22- of the Act.
28. Before I venture to make an affirmative declaration on the above, I must remind myself that there is a world of difference between a "meeting for an election" and the "election" itself. It is indubitable that "Election" is a process under which a person/s finally gets elected, leading to a declaration in law; while a meeting is only an event or part of that process, in which deliberations are made and polling is conducted. Axiomatically, there can be more than one meeting for the purpose of an election but there can only be one "election" consequent to a notification issued by the Election Commission.
29. That being kept in mind, the question which now begs an answer is whether the Election Commission can convene a new meeting within the parameters of the notification which it had WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -23- issued earlier; or whether it should be directed to conduct a fresh election itself.
30. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, no doubt, asserts that a new meeting cannot be convened to complete the election process, which was attempted on 16.10.2019; and that fresh Elections will have to be called through a new notification. I am afraid, however, that he is unable to show me any specific provision, either in the Act or in the Rules, which mandates such a course in all cases.
31. This is pertinent and crucial because, in the matters at hand, nobody has a case that the elections were completed on 16.10.2019; and it is unequivocally conceded that the Returning Officer made a mistake in having announced the name of Sri.T.M.Rasheed, even without entering into the second stage of the process of election. This was wholly impermissible and beyond his competence and WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -24- therefore, his action can only be seem to be null and void, it being without legal sanction.
32. Ineluctably, therefore, had there been necessary quorum and no pandemonium, as asserted by the Returning Officer, the next stage of the election process could have been done on the same day by the said Officer, when he became aware of the mistake he committed, but he was unable to do so for the reasons stated in the report before the Election Commission. Thus, indubitably, the Returning Officer could not complete the election process on that day and it consequently remains incomplete, without the next stage having been conducted as per Rule 8(7)(b) of the Rules.
33. Ergo, I am of the firm opinion that a new notification for a fresh Election is not necessary.
34. I am also persuaded to the afore WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -25- opinion because I do not see any prejudice being caused, either to Sri.P.M.Rasheed or to Sri.V.M.Siraj, by allowing the Election Commission to conduct the next stage of elections under Rule 8(7)(b) of the Rules because, whether it was conducted on 16.10.2019 in continuation of the meeting on that day or today, the councillors of the Municipality will have to elect only among them and no one else.
35. This is especially significant because, neither T.M.Rasheed nor V.M.Siraj, has indicated any intention on their side to withdraw themselves from the electoral foray; and it is thus incomprehensible why Sri.V.M.Siraj should insist that a new Election Notification must be issued, because if the process under Rule 8(7)(b) of the Rules is now taken forward by the Election Commission, his contest will only be against Sri.T.M.Rasheed, on account of the elimination of WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -26- Smt.T.M.Laila Pareed and will,consequently, also be to his interest that such process is completed at the earliest.
36. As regards the contentions of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan regarding the contours of the powers of the Election Commission is concerned, I am certainly with him that the Election Commission cannot travel beyond the provisions of the applicable Statutes and the Rules and that they will have to act scrupulously within the defined perimeters of the same. However, pertinently, within the confines of the peculiar facts noticed herein, when I allow the Election Commission to conduct the next stage of elections by following the mandate of Rule 8(7)(b) of the Rules, it is irrefutable that they will be doing so only within their statutorily mandated bounds and not beyond it. Therefore, even going by the judgments aforecited by Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, I am WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -27- certain that this Court will be fully justified in allowing the Election Commission to continue with the process of election, so that there will obtain a finality to it, rather than allowing the present state of flux being allowed to continue any longer.
Resultantly, I dismiss W.P.(C) No.28771 of 2019 and order W.P.(C) No.28034 of 2019, allowing the Election Commission to convene a meeting of the Councillors of the Erattupetta Municipality for the purpose of voting between Sri.T.M.Rasheed and Sri.V.M.Siraj, so as to enable the said Commission to declare the Elections, notified by them through their earlier notification, in terms of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE vv WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -28- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28034/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 5.10.2019 OF THE ELECTION TO THE POST OF CHAIRMAN OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, RETURNING OFFICER ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER ABOUT THE POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTION EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16.10.2019 RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.SEC-568- 2019-B3 DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION WP(C)Nos.28034/2019 & 28771/2019 -29- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28771/2019 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 16/10/2019 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SEC-568-2019-B3 DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1(a) THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO.SEC-568-2019- B3 DATED 31.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSION //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE