Jharkhand High Court
Kumar Nishant vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 December, 2022
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No 2185 of 2022
---
Kumar Nishant ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi
3. The Secretary, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi
4. The District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh
5. The Returning Officer, XVI, Ramgarh Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency No. 5 (Patratu), Ramgarh .... ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Advocate Mr. H.K.Shikarwar, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Niranjan Tiwary, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1,4 &5 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, A.A.G.-III Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to A.A.G.-III For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 3: Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Order No. 09 Dated: 07.12.2022 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 06.05.2022 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the State Election Commissioner, Jharkhand (the respondent no. 2), copy of which has been communicated to different authorities vide memo no. 1049 dated 06.05.2022 under the signature of the Secretary, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no. 3) whereby the respondent no. 2 while exercising the power conferred under Section 66(5) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (in short the Act, 2001), has countermanded the election process of XVI, Ramgarh Zila Parishad Territorial Constituency No.5, Patratu (hereinafter to be referred as "the said constituency") . Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the Returning Officer (the respondent no.5) to declare the petitioner as a duly elected candidate of Zila Parishad from the said Constituency in view of the provisions as contained in rule 51(1) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Election Rules, 2001 (in short the "Rules, 2001") as the petitioner was the only candidate who filed nomination for the said constituency which was found valid in scrutiny.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Election Officer, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 4) published a programme 2 by way of public notice with respect to three-tier Panchayat (General) Election, 2022 for constitution of Ramgarh Zila Parishad and the detailed schedule of election to elect members of the said constituency was as follows :-
Date of publication of notification:- 25.04.2022 Last date of filing of nomination papers:- 02.05.2022 Date fixed for scrutiny of nomination Papers:- 04/05.05.2022 Date of withdrawal of nomination papers:- 06/07.05.2022 Date of allotment of symbols :- 09.05.2022 Date of voting:- 24.05.2022 Date of counting:- 31.05.2022
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed his nomination papers before the respondent no.5 to contest the election for the said constituency. Some other persons had also purchased nomination papers to contest the said election, however they failed to submit their nomination papers till the last date and time fixed for filing of the same. During the process of scrutiny, the petitioner's nomination paper having been found valid was accepted by the respondent no.5. Since there was no other candidate to contest the election and that the petitioner had not withdrawn his candidature till the last date and time fixed for withdrawal of candidature, he should have been declared elected uncontested by the respondent no. 5 immediately after 3.00 P.M. on 07.05.2022 in view of the provisions contained in rule- 51(1) of the Rules, 2001. However, the respondent no. 2, vide impugned order dated 06.05.2022, arbitrarily countermanded the election process of the said constituency.
4. It is also submitted that no complaint was received by any Officer, whether of the District Administration, State Administration or associated with conducting the election of the said constituency that any person intending to file his/her nomination paper to contest the election, was prevented from filing nomination paper. However, after filing of the nomination paper, the petitioner was called at Patratu Police Station on 02.05.2022 at about 9:30 p.m. by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh whereupon he went there but was illegally detained by the Officer-in- Charge till 00:50 A.M. of 04.05.2022 despite the fact that he was not 3 needed in connection with any criminal case. On the basis of self- statement of S.I. Shashi Prakash, Officer-in-Charge of Patratu Police Station, an F.I.R. being Patratu P.S. Case No. 76 of 2022 was lodged on 04.05.2022 at 00:50 A.M. for the offences under Sections 342/171(E)/171(F)/ 504/506/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 68A of the Act, 2001 and Section 123 (1) & (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short, "the Act, 1951").
5. It is further submitted that one Kanchan Devi, who had made complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh against the petitioner, did not even purchase the nomination paper. Moreover, the district administration/police showed extraordinary indulgence towards those persons who had purchased the nomination papers to contest election of the said constituency by recording their statements wherein they alleged that a person namely Vikash Tiwary threatened them not to file their nomination papers and to surrender those before the members of 'Pandey Group'. According to their statements, they were also told by Vikash Tiwary that since the brother of Nishi Pandey was to win the election uncontested, no one would file nomination papers in the said constituency. It was also alleged that one Bittu Kumar Singh, who had purchased nomination papers to contest election from the said constituency, was illegally confined by the petitioner in his vehicle and was pressurized not to file his nomination papers.
6. It is also submitted that veracity of the allegations made in the F.I.R. levelled against the petitioner is yet to be tested in the court of law and as such issuance of the impugned order merely on the basis of allegation made in the F.I.R. is highly arbitrary and illegal. If the situation in the said constituency was that the petitioner was to be declared elected as per the provisions of rule-51(1) of Rules, 2001 having filed the only valid nomination paper, there was no occasion for Patratu Police or Ramgarh Police to illegally intervene in the matter even if they were informed by some of the candidates that they were prevented from filing their nomination papers. The action taken by Ramgarh/Patratu Police on the basis of so-called secret information was an illegal intervention with the statutory process. Curiously enough, the police called those persons from their respective houses who purchased the nomination papers and 4 recorded their statements after lodging F.I.R. against the petitioner. Otherwise also, the allegation made in the FIR can only be termed as "corrupt practice" under Section 123 of the Act, 1951 which may be a ground to get the election of the returned candidate declared as void under Section 152(1)(d)(ii) of the Act, 2001 but the same cannot be a ground to countermand the election before ascertaining the real facts pursuant to the allegation made by the police against the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the mandate of rule 51 (1) of Rules, 2001 has to be followed by the State Election Commission which clearly speaks that if after the expiry of last date and time for withdrawal of candidature, there is only one candidate whose nomination paper has been found valid, the returning officer would declare the said candidate to have been duly elected by informing the District Election Officer in this regard. He puts reliance on judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 as well as Kuldip Nayar Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 7 SCC 1 and submits that when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with conduct of election, the Election Commission is required to act in conformity with such provisions and not in violation of the same, but where the law is silent, Article 324 of the Constitution of India is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of ensuring free and fair elections with expedition.
8. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, submits that the respondent no. 2 has rightly countermanded the election of the said Constituency in exercise of its power conferred under Section 66(5) of the Act, 2001. It is further submitted that Section 66(5) of the Act, 2001 confers specific power to the State Election Commission to initiate suitable action on examination of report submitted by Observer or on receipt of allegation of irregularities in Panchayat Election and such action may include countermanding of the election, stay of election and stay on counting of votes. The District Election Officer (Panchayat)-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (the respondent no. 4), vide letter no. 423 dated 05.05.2022, reported the Secretary, State Election Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi (the respondent no.3) that as per 5 information provided by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, vide letter no. 2267/Go. dated 04.05.2022, the petitioner had forcibly prevented the other candidates from filing their nomination papers. The General Observer, Observer Cell, Ramgarh, vide letter No. 22 dated 05.05.2022 issued to the respondent no. 3, also confirmed the report of the respondent no. 4 and recommended for taking action in accordance with law. Hence, countermanding of the election of the said constituency was necessary to ensure free and fair election. Learned counsel for the aforesaid respondents also puts reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and submits that the Constitution of India contemplates a free and fair election and confers comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence and control in conducting elections to the Election Commission under Articles 324 and the said responsibility includes powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or others, depending on the circumstances.
9. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned A.A.G.-III appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 4 and 5, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5, submits that a complaint was made against the petitioner in Patratu Police Station by few candidates alleging that he threatened them through gangsters and prevented them from filing their nomination papers. As such, an F.I.R. being Patratu P.S. Case No 76/2022 was lodged against the petitioner on 04.05.2022 for the offences under Sections 342/171(E)/171(F)/504/506/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 68A of the Act, 2001 and Section 123 (1) & (2) of the Act, 1951. The fact of threatening given by the petitioner to other contestants of the said constituency was also reported by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh to the respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 04.05.2022 wherein recommendation to cancel the petitioner's nomination as well as to conduct free and fair election of the said constituency was also made. The respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 423 dated 05.05.2022, informed the aforesaid matter to the respondent no. 3 and made similar recommendation as was made by the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh. Moreover, the General Observer, Observer Cell, Ramgarh, namely Jai Kishore Prasad, vide letter no. 22 dated 05.05.2022, also 6 reported the said fact to the respondent no. 3 and recommended to take action in accordance with law. Considering the said fact, the respondent no. 2 passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2022 countermanding the election of the said constituency.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner has put challenge to the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the respondent no.2 whereby the election of the said constituency has been countermanded.
11. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of rule 51(1) of the Rules, 2001, a duty is cast upon the Returning Officer to declare a returned candidate as successful if he/she is only surviving candidate in a particular constituency whose nomination has been found valid on scrutiny. The petitioner has claimed that he was the only candidate in the said constituency and his nomination paper was found valid on scrutiny by the respondent no.5 and as such in view of rule 51(1) of the Rules, 2001, the petitioner was entitled to be elected uncontested from the said constituency.
12. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) relied upon by both the sides wherein it has been held as under:-
"92. Diffusion, even more elaborate discussion, tends to blur the precision of the conclusion in a judgment and so it is meet that we synopsize the formulations. Of course, the condensed statement we make is for convenience, not for exclusion of the relevance or attenuation of the binding impact of the detailed argumentation. For this limited purpose, we set down our holdings:
"(1)(a) Article 329(b) is a blanket ban on litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its officers for carrying forward the process of election to its culmination in the formal declaration of the result.
(b) Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of the returned candidate.
(2)(a) The Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, 7 depending on the circumstances.
(b) Two limitations at least are laid on its plenary character in the exercise thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition. Secondly, the Commission shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bona fide and be amenable to the norms of natural justice insofar as conformance to such canons can reasonably and realistically be required of it as fairplay-in-action in a most important area of the constitutional order viz. elections.
Fairness does import an obligation to see that no wrongdoer candidate benefits by his own wrong. To put the matter beyond doubt, natural justice enlivens and applies to the specific case of order for total re-poll, although not in full panoply but in flexible practicability. Whether it has been complied with is left open for the Tribunal's adjudication.
(3) The conspectus of provisions bearing on the subject of elections clearly expresses the rule that there is a remedy for every wrong done during the election in progress although it is postponed to the post-election stage and procedure as predicated in Article 329(b) and the 1951 Act. The Election Tribunal has, under the various provisions of the Act, large enough powers to give relief to an injured candidate if he makes out a case and such processual amplitude of power extends to directions to the Election Commission or other appropriate agency to hold a poll, to bring up the ballots or do other thing necessary for fulfilment of the jurisdiction to undo illegality and injustice and do complete justice within the parameters set by the existing law."
13. I have also gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kuldip Nayar (supra) wherein it has been held as under:-
"426. It has been argued by the petitioners that the Election Commission of India, which under the Constitution has been given the plenary powers to supervise the elections freely and fairly, had opposed the impugned amendment of changing the secret ballot system. Its view has, therefore, to be given proper weightage.
427. In this context, we would say that where the law on the subject is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power for the Election Commission to act for the avowed purpose of pursuing the goal of a free and fair election, and in this view it also assumes the role of an adviser. But the power to make law under Article 327 vests in Parliament, which is supreme and so, not bound by such advice. We would reject the argument by referring to what this Court has already said in Mohinder Singh Gill [(1978) 1 SCC 405] and what bears 8 reiteration here is that the limitations on the exercise of "plenary character" of the Election Commission include one to the effect that "when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions".
14. In the aforesaid judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Article 324 of the Constitution of India empowers the Election Commission to act as an adviser to pursue the goal of a free and fair election. Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon the electorate to elect and culminating in the final declaration of election result of the returned candidates. However, when the Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with and not in violation of, such provisions.
15. Section 66(5) of the Act, 2001 provides that the State Election Commission shall have discretion to initiate suitable action on examination of report submitted by Observer or on receipt of allegation of irregularities in Panchayat Election and such action may include countermanding of the election, stay of election and stay on counting of votes. Thus, the legislature has empowered the State Election Commission in a clear and unambiguous term to take suitable actions on examination of report submitted by observer or on receipt of allegations of irregularities in Panchayat elections and such action may include countermanding of election, stay on election and stay on counting of votes. The word "irregularity" is not defined in the Act, 2001, however I am of the view that the same should be given wide connotation so as to check all possible events which come in the way of free and fair election.
16. Mr. Sumit Gadodia, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, has put reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Devi Vs. Radha Devi Gupta reported in (2005) 2 SCC 271 wherein it has been held that the interpretative function of the court is to discover the true legislative intent. If the words are clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the court must give to the words that meaning irrespective of 9 the consequences. If the words used are capable of one construction only, then it is not open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with the purported object and policy of the Act. In considering whether there is ambiguity, the court must look at the statute as a whole and consider the appropriateness of the meaning in a particular context avoiding absurdity and inconsistencies or unreasonableness which may render the statute unconstitutional.
17. In the case of Ajay Pradhan Vs. State of M.P. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 514, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that if the precise words used in a statute are plain and unambiguous, the court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect. The argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are alternative methods of construction.
18. Rule 51(1) of the Rules, 2001, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, provides in a specific term that if after the expiry of last date and time for withdrawal of candidature, there is only one candidate and his nomination paper has been found valid, the Returning Officer will declare the said candidate to have been duly elected to fill up the post and he will inform the District Election Officer in this regard. Thus, there are twin conditions for declaring a candidate as elected under rule 51(1) of Rules, 2001; first is that he should be the only candidate after expiry of last date and time for withdrawal of candidature and the second is that his nomination paper should be found valid. The word "after" clearly reflects the intention of the legislature that in the event of finding the nomination paper of only one candidate as valid, he/she will be declared uncontested after expiry of last date and time for withdrawal of candidature and not before that.
19. In the case in hand, it is evident that the last date for filing of nomination papers was 02.05.2022, the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers was 04/05.05.2022 and the date for withdrawal of nomination papers was 06/07.05.2022. Admittedly, an FIR was lodged against the petitioner and others on 04.05.2022 on the basis of the self- statement of S.I Sashi Prakash, Officer in-charge, Patratu P.S. and the 10 impugned order has also been passed on 06.05.2022 which is prior to the last date of withdrawal of nomination papers. Since the order of countermanding of election in exercise of power under section 66(5) of the Act, 2001 was passed before the last date of withdrawal of the nomination papers, there was no question of declaring the petitioner as successful in view of rule 55(1) of the Rules, 2001. Thus, the proposition laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) as has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner goes against his argument and the action of the State Election Commission appears to be in conformity with Rule 51(1) of the Rules, 2001. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has clearly held that election process commences from the Presidential notification and culminates with the final declaration of the returned candidate.
20. I find no substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the allegation levelled against the petitioner in the FIR constitutes a "corrupt practice" within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act, 1951 read with Section 154 of the Act, 2001 and this can only be challenged by filing an election petition. No doubt, there is a provision for filing of election petition under Section 151 of the Act, 2001 challenging any election on the grounds mentioned in Section 152 (1) of the Act, 2001 which includes exercise of corrupt practice by the elected candidate, however that does not render the power of the Election Commission under section 66(5) of the Act, 2001 as redundant so as to exercise its discretion to initiate suitable action on examination of report submitted by the Observer or on receipt of allegations of irregularities in Panchayat elections and such action may include countermanding the election. The purpose of giving such power to the State Election Commission is to ensure free and fair election and not to make the election commission paralyzed even if situation demands for taking suitable action without waiting for filing of election petition.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has put much reliance on the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jay Shankar Pathak v. Election Commission of India and others reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar 435 wherein challenge was made to the action of the Election Commission of India 11 taken under Article 324 of the Constitution of India read with Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and other enabling power whereby recommendation was made to the President of India to rescind the notification no. 318/1/2012 (1) dated 12th March, 2012 issued for calling upon the elected members of Jharkhand Legislative Assembly to elect two members of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha). In the said case, it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the legislature enacted adequate safeguards in order to ensure free and fair election which includes initiation of appropriate criminal proceeding as well as annulling the election of a candidate who had been declared elected by means of corrupt practice. It was further argued that the Election Commission could not have stopped the process of election on mere recovery of Rs.2.15 crores alleged to have been used on behalf of one of the independent candidates in connection with said election of Council of States.
22. Learned Division Bench framed several issues for appropriate decision of the said cases out of which, issue nos.(a) and (e) were as follows:-
"a.) Whether the Election Commission who has power under Article 324 relating to superintendence, direction, control and conduct of election which is a plenary power but these powers are subject to limitation i.e., law enacted by Parliament or any State legislature relating to or in connection with election and Whether the Commission in present situation acted in conformity with such laws and not in violation of such provisions.
e.) Whether the Election Commission had only power to cancel the vote of those voters who have shown their ballots after mark to the unauthorized person and that fact cannot be taken into consideration while judging the entire process of the election?
Finally, learned Division Bench dismissed the writ petitions observing as under:-
26. In our opinion, the Election Commission did what the Hon'ble Supreme Court expects from high functionary authority like Election Commission that, even if the law and the rules are absent even then if Election Commission comes across such a situation and he is to tackle that situation then he should not remain with folded hands and pray to God for divine inspiration to enable him to exercise his functions and to perform his duties or to look to any external authority for the grant of powers to deal with the situations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the question raised by 12 the petitioner that Election Commission must exercise his power independently in all matters relating to the conduct of free and fair elections and see that election process is completed properly in a free and fair manner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court further in paragraph 115 of M.S Gill's case (Supra) clearly held that the Election Commission is entitled to exercise certain powers under Article 324 itself on its own right, in an area not covered by the act and rules. Whether the power is exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner is a completely different question."
23. Thus, learned Division Bench reiterated the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) that even in absence of the law and rules, if the Election Commission came across a particular situation which needed appropriate action from its side then in that situation it should not be waiting praying to God for divine inspiration to enable it to exercise its functions and to perform its duties or to look to any external authority for grant of powers to deal with the situation.
24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the law laid down in the case of Jay Shankar Pathak (supra) is not applicable in the present case as there was clinching evidence in the said case to rescind the election which is missing here. It has further been contended that in the above case, complaint was filed by few members of Parliament alleging use of money, power and horse-trading and thereafter a huge recovery of bribe amount was made, however in the case in hand, there is only recording of statement of one Kanchan Devi and except that there is no legal evidence to countermand the election.
25. I do not find any substance in the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as in the case of Jay Shankar Pathak (supra), the Election Commission had cancelled the entire election process with respect to election of the two members of Council of States (Rajya Sabha) from the State of Jharkhand on the allegation of use of money, power and horse-trading and the said allegations were yet to be proved in the proceeding before the competent court of law. In the present case also, though the allegation levelled in the FIR is required to be proved in the criminal court, yet the allegation in the same is that the other candidates were forcibly prevented from filing their nomination papers by one Vikash Tiwary so as to get the petitioner elected 13 uncontested which was sufficient to countermand so as to ensure free and fair election. If the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then the Election Commission will have to wait for the outcome of criminal case before taking any decision and in that situation, the purpose of conferring power of superintendence, direction and control of election to the Election Commission for conducting free and fair election under Articles 324 and 243K of the Constitution of India will be redundant.
26. One of the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the observer merely mentioned in his letter no. 22 dated 05.05.2022 that it was a case of violation of model code of conduct and thus the Election Commission was not empowered to exercise the jurisdiction under section 66(5) of the Act, 2001, rather the same can be said to be a ground for filing election petition.
27. On bare perusal of letter dated 05.05.2022, it appears that the observer on enquiry found the allegation made in the FIR as true and further mentioned that it was the matter of violation of model code of conduct. The observer had also mentioned in the said letter that the Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, vide letter no. 2267 dated 04.05.2022, had recommended respondent no. 4 to cancel the nomination of the petitioner and to take further action for conducting free and fair election whereupon the respondent no. 4, vide letter no. 423 dated 05.05.2022, forwarded the said recommendation with affirmation to the respondent no. 3 to take further action in accordance with law. Thus, I find no infirmity in the exercise of the power under Section 66(5) of the Act, 2001 by the State Election Commission even if the observer had mentioned that the case was related to violation of model code of conduct. Otherwise also, the role of the observer is to bring actual facts to the notice of the State Election Commission which is the competent authority under law to take final decision.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the Respondent no.2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.) Ritesh/AFR