Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Varaganti Narayana vs Election Officer Municipal ... on 2 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)ALD450, 2000(3)ALT617
ORDER
1. The State Election Commission ('the Commission' for brevity) in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 243-ZA of the Constitution of India read with Section 10-A of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 ('the Act' for brevity) and Section 9 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 ('HMC Act' for brevity) as applicable to other Corporations, issued notifications on 12-2-2000 calling upon the voters in Municipalities and Municipal Corporations to elect Chairpersons/Mayors/wards members. In accordance with the notifications issued by the Commission, various Election Authorities issued election notifications on 14-2-2000. As per the election notifications, the last date for filing nominations in the Municipalities and Corporations is 21-2-2000. The various Election Officers conducted scrutiny of all the nominations for the offices of Chairpersons/Mayors/Ward members on 22-2-2000. The Election Officers rejected the nominations and passed orders of rejection. In all these writ petitions, the persons who filed their nominations for contesting elections to the wards in various Municipalities have approached this Court questioning the rejection orders and praying for consequential directions to the Election Officers of the various Municipalities to permit the petitioners to contest in the elections for Ward members to be held on 9-3-2000. As similar questions of law arise for consideration in all these writ petitions, they are being disposed for by this common order at the admission stage.
2. In Writ Petition No.2969 of 2000 the petitioner's nomination for contesting for Ward No.20 of Alwal Municipality was rejected on 22-2-2000 by the Election Officer on the ground that the petitioner failed to sign the declaration in Form No.1. Sri V. Venkataramana, who has made leading submission in this Batch of writ petitions, has submitted that the defect of submitting nomination form with unsigned declaration is not of substantial character and, therefore, under second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the A.P. Municipal Councils/ Nagar Panchayats (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1965 (hereafter called the 'Election Rules'), the Election Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination. It is further contended that the petitioner has obtained two nomination forms, filled both of them and as he was suffering from B.P. and Diabetes, in confusion he filed the nomination with unsigned declaration and on the date of scrutiny he was ready with another nomination form with duly signed declaration and, therefore, his nomination ought to have been accepted. The learned Counsel has invited the attention of this Court to Rules 6,8,9 and 10 of the Election Rules. It is his submission that when the rejection of nomination is arbitrary, Article 243-ZG(b) of the Constitution is not a bar for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. In Writ Petition No.3032 of 2000, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Election Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner for contesting as member of Ward No.41 of Gudur Municipality on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification under clause (h) of subsection (2) of Section 15 of the Act. According to Sri P. Gangarami Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, on 9-12-1998 the petitioner participated in the tenders called for by the Gudur Municipality, that the tender itself was cancelled on 12-4-1999, questioning the cancellation, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No.11043 of 1999 and on 19-2-2000 this Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and, therefore, the disqualification under clause (h) sub-section (2) of Section 15 is not attracted.
4. In Writ Petition No.3034 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination for contesting for member of Ward No.19 of Eluru Municipality was rejected on the ground that the petitioner incurred disqualification under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act. Sri B.P. Raju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner entered into a contract with the Municipality on 3-5-1999 for construction of a compound wall and the Municipality did not hand over the site to the petitioner. Therefore, the contract was not in force and not acted upon and no work was implemented and, therefore, the rejection of the nomination on the ground of disqualification as per Section 15(2)(c) of the Act is arbitrary.
5. In Writ Petition 3035 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination for Ward No.1 of Serilingamapplli Municipality was rejected on 22-2-2000 on the ground that though the petitioner has paid Rs.100/- being the deposit for the purpose of Rule 8(1) of the Rules, the attestation is made by he Mandal Revenue Officer instead of the competent revenue authority, i.e., the Revenue Divisional Officer. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri A. Rama Rao representing Sri P. Veera Reddy, submits that as the petitioner belongs to backward class, he is liable to pay only Rs.100/- as deposit, which he paid and, therefore, for want of proper attestation, nomination cannot be rejected.
6. In Writ Petition No.3061 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination for Ward No. 18 of Serilingampalii Municipality was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified in accordance with the provision of Section 15(2)(c) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Visweswara Rao, the petitioner has no subsisting contract and, therefore, the petitioner's nomination ought not to have been rejected, especially when the petitioner made a representation on 14-2-2000 to the Commissioner to cancel the registration of the petitioner as a contractor and for issuance of 'no objection certificate'.
7. In Writ Petition Nos.3072 and 3079 of 2000, the rejection of nomination of the petitioners for Ward Nos.5 and 8 of Serilingampalii Municipality respectively has been assailed. In the former case, the rejection is on the ground that the Sl. No., in the electoral roll in respect of the candidate and proposer is not mentioned in the appropriate columns 2 and 9 and, therefore, the identity of the candidate and the proposer is not established. In the latter case, the nomination was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to sign the declaration as per Rule 6(1) of the Election Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saida Rao, in Writ Petition No.3072 of 2000 submits that as per the Voters' list, the petitioner's name is mentioned at S.No.251 and the name of the proposer at S.No.471 and, therefore, under the second proviso to Rule 10(2) of the Election Rules, the Election Officer ought not to have rejected the nomination, because the defect is not of substantial character. The learned Counsel Smt. Archana Bharathi appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3079 of 2000 submits that the petitioner filed four sets of nomination papers and they were checked and verified by the Returning Officer and, therefore, there is no truth in the order rejecting the nomination on the ground that the petitioner has not signed the declaration.
8. In Writ Petition No.3068 of 2000, the order of the Election Officer rejecting the nomination of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is disqualified under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act is assailed. The learned Counsel, Sri Y. V. Ravi Prasad for the petitioner submits that by judgment dated 10-3-1998 the Court of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.500/- that the fine was paid and that an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is pending before the appellate Court and, therefore, the petitioner cannot said to have incurred disqualification under Section 15(1)(b) of the Act. The learned Counsel submits that the order of the Election Officer, therefore, is illegal and unsustainable.
9. In Writ Petition No.3140 of 2000, the petitioner's grievance as projected by the learned Counsel Sri Krishna Mohan, is that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner for Ward No.4 of Anantapur Municipality on the ground that 'no due certificate' is not furnished is illegal and unsustainable.
10. In Writ Petition No.3147 of 2000, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ch. Ramesh Babu, submits that the petitioner's nomination is rejected on the ground that the petitioner, being an active member of Community Development Society has not completed the pending works nor has resigned. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Section 15(2)(c) and 15(2)(h) of the Act as the petitioner is not holding any office of profit or has any fiduciary relationship with the Municipality.
11. In Writ Petition No.3182 of 2000, the nomination of the petitioner, who belongs to backward class was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has deposited only Rs.100/-. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri C. Damodar Reddy has invited the attention of the Court to an endorsement made by the Election Officer directing the clerk of the office to collect only Rs.100/-for filing nomination for Ward No.1 of Khammam Municipality and submitted that the petitioner paid the amount of Rs. 100/-under Rule 8(1) of the Election Rules as directed by the Election Officer and, therefore, the nomination of the petitioner cannot be rejected.
12. In Writ Petition No.3204 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination for Ward No. 14 of Pithapuram Municipality was rejected by an endorsement dated 22-2-2000 on the ground that the petitioner is a lessee of shops 1 to 4 in the Municipal Shopping Complex at Cine theatre and that a writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. Ravinder, has invited the attention of this Court to an endorsement dated 11-2-2000 given by the Commissioner of the Municipality accepting the request of the petitioner to remove the name of the petitioner and mutate the shops in the name of one Mr. Annaji Rao as lease holder and submits that in view of this endorsement, the rejection is arbitrary and illegal.
13. In Writ Petition No.3089 of 2000, the rejection of the petitioner's nomination for Ward No.3 of Guntur Municipal Corporation is challenged. Sri Raghunath Vasireddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not enclosed the 'no due certificate' which is impermissible under the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (Election of Mayor, members and elected representatives) Rules, 1987 (hereafter called 'Corporation Election Rules'). It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no such requirement in HMC Act or Corporation the Corporation Election Rules to file a 'no due certificate' and, therefore, the rejection of nomination is improper. The learned Counsel also submitted that under Section 79 of the HMC Act, in the event of rejection of nomination, the Election Tribunal is not competent to entertain an election petition and declare the election void and, therefore, there is no alternative remedy for the petitioner except to seek appropriate relief from this Court.
14. In Writ Petition No.3252 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination was rejected on the ground that the nomination of the proposer does not tally with the entry in the electoral roll for Ward No. 13 of Gadwal Municipality. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. Narasimha Rao, has invited the attention of the Court to the xerox copy of the relevant pages (Page Nos.19-20 and 21-22) of the Voters' List and would contend that the name of the proposer, Smt. Narasammma is shown as resident of D No.7-9-276 and, therefore, rejection of nomination of the petitioner on that ground is illegal and arbitrary. A perusal of the Xerox copy of page No.19-20 of the Voters" list shows that the resident of D No.7-9-276 is shown as Narasamma wife of Peddanna. In the Xerox copy of Form No.1 (nomination paper) at Column No.8, 9 and 10, the name of the proposer is shown as Narasamma wife of Siddahanna. Therefore, the submission appears to be not correct.
15. In Writ Petition No.3277 of 2000, the petitioner's nomination for Ward No.9 of Karimnagar Municipality was rejected on the ground that the name and door number of the petitioner were not tallying with the correct serial number of the Voters' List. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Satya Sai Kameshwar submits that the error of not mentioning the correct serial number, though mentioning the correct serial number as per 1995 electoral list is of technical nature and, therefore, the defect is not of substantial character which can enable the Election Officer to reject the nomination of the petitioner. For this ground, the learned Counsel submits the rejection is unsustainable.
16. Writ Petition Nos.3164, 3219 and 3251 of 2000 arise under Rules 6, 8 and 10(2)(iv)of the Election Rules.
17. In Writ Petition No.3164 of 2000, the petitioner is one of the two candidates contesting for the office of member of Ward No.1 of Rajendranagar Municipality. It is his case that the said ward is reserved for ST (General) and being a member belonging to 'lambada' caste, he is entitled to contest the election whereas the 4th respondent, the other person who filed the nomination, belongs to 'Thoti' caste which is a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he is not entitled to contest the election. Sri Ch. Dhanajaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, the fourth respondent belongs to 'Thoti' caste which is a Scheduled Caste and, therefore, he is not eligible for contesting the election as ward member and, therefore, the nomination of the fourth respondent ought to have been rejected by the Election Officer under Rule 10(2)(iv). The learned GP for Municipal Administration, Sri M. Rama Rao, placed reliance on the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order and submits that in Hyderabad District 'Thoti' is Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the Election Officer has proceeded in the right direction in not rejecting the nomination of the fourth respondent. In any event, learned GP would submit that if any orders arc passed, it would amount to declaring the petitioner as elected, which is not permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution and that these are the matters which are to be decided by the Election Tribunal.
18. In Writ Petition No.3219 of 2000, the petitioner, who is a candidate for election as member of Ward No.12 of Yemmiganur Municipality, is aggrieved by the inclusion of the names of respondents 6 and 7 in the list of eligible candidates as, according to the petitioner, respondents 6 and 7 who claim to be 'koyas', cannot be treated as belonging to Schedule Tribe as per various Government orders. Ms. S. V. Indira, learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed an objection petition before the Election Officer on 21-2-2000 and inspite of this the Election Officer did not reject the candidature of respondents 6 and 7 and, therefore, would pray to suspend the process of election scheduled to be held on 9-3-2000.
19. In Writ Petition No.3251 of 2000, the petitioner filed nomination for election as member of Ward No.8 of Salur Municipality. By an elaborate order, the same was rejected by the Election Officer on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the original caste certificate on the date of scrutiny and did not file the nomination in accordance with Paras 31(a) and 41(6) of the instructions issued by the Commission. Sri T. Lakshminarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after receiving the order of rejection from the Election Officer, the petitioner filed an appeal/representation before the Commission on 26-2-2000 and the same is not disposed of. He would submit that the petitioner has produced the certified Xerox copy of the caste certificate issued earlier and, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Andhra Pradesh (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 and the Rules made thereunder, the petitioner is entitled to contest the election as Scheduled Tribe candidate and hence rejection of nomination by the Election Officer is illegal.
20. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners at length. Sri M. Rama Rao, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration, Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the State Election Commission, Sri Sambasiva Pratap, Sri G. Vijayakumar and Sri V. Viswanathatn, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities and others were also heard. Alt the learned Counsel fairly submitted that in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that the writ petitions filed questioning the rejection of nomination are not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court may not be inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, all the learned Counsel have vehemently contended that when there is ex facie arbitrariness in the Election Officers rejecting the nominations for unsustainable grounds, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, in the interests of Justice, this Court should interfere and allow the petitioners to contest in the ensuing elections as ward members. Sri M. Rama Rao, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration though fairly conceded in some cases that the rejection of nomination is prima facie illegal, he vehemently contended that in view of the various Judgments of the Supreme Court under Articles 329, 243-O, 243-ZA of the Constitution, writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are not maintainable.
21. Before considering the question whether the writ petitions are maintainable or not, it is appropriate to advert to the various provisions of the Act and the Rules dealing with disqualifications.
22. Sections 13 and 13-A of the Act deal with qualifications of the candidates. A person whose name appears in the electoral roll alone be qualified for election as a member of Municipal Council provided he has attained the age of 21 years, A person having more than two children is disqualified under Section 13-B. A person holding office of profit under Municipality, Central Government or State Government, shall be disqualified for election as member or holding office as a member. Under subsection (1) of Section 15, a person who has been sentenced by a criminal Court for any offence shall be disqualified for election as a member while undergoing sentence and for five years from the date of expiration thereof. Whether the sentence imposition of fine by the criminal Court amounts to 'a sentence by a criminal Court for an offence', whether pendency ofappeal against the conviction and sentence amounts to disqualification are questions to be gone into in an appropriate case in the context of appropriate factual situation.
23. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 disqualifies a person of unsound mind and an insolvent for election as member. Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 also says that a person shall be disqualified for election as member if such person, on the date of scrutiny of nomination for election, has interest in subsisting lease or contract entered into with or any work being done for the Municipality. The proviso to clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 15 deals with various situations in which a person shall not be deemed to have any interest in such contract or work. Section 15(2)(h) disqualifies a person who, on the date of scrutiny of nomination, is in arrears of any kind due by such person otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity to the Municipality. Section 16 of the Act deals with disqualification of members. Section 17 enables the District Judge of the District to determine whether or not any person who is elected as a member is disqualified and any decision by the District Judge shall be final. Section 17 operates and comes into play only after the elections are completed.
24. The Election Rules, inter alia, provide for filing of nominations and scrutiny of nominations. As per Rule 6, the nomination of every candidate shall be made by means of a Nomination by Form No.1 and every nomination paper shall have to be signed by one elector as proposer and the candidate shall have to sign the declaration expressing his willingness. If the nomination is filed in respect of a reserved seat for ST, SC and BC, a declaration in Form No.III made before an officer not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar shall have to be attached to the nomination paper. Rule 8 provides for the deposit to be made by the candidate wishing to stand for election to a Municipal Council. If a person belongs to ST, SC or BC, such person has to pay a sum of Rs.100/- and for others the deposit is Rs.200/-. If the deposit is not made in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 8, "no candidate shall be deemed to be duly nominated for any seat in respect of which such deposit has not been made."
25. Rule 10 deals with scrutiny of nomination papers. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, the Election Officer shall examine the nomination papers, decide all objections which may be made at the time of scrutiny and may, either on his own or on such objection, reject the nomination on the ground that the candidate is ineligible for election under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act, that the proposer is not a person whose name is registered on the electoral rolls, that the candidate or the proposer failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 6 and 8 or that the candidate does not belong to the community for which the seat is reserved. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 contains two provisos. The first proviso says that the nomination of a candidate shall not be rejected merely on the ground of any incorrect description of the name of the candidate or his proposer, if the identity of the candidate or proposer, as the case may be, is established beyond reasonable doubt. The second proviso is of general nature, which says that unless the defect is of substantial character, the nomination shall not be rejected.
26. The registration of the candidate and the proposer in the Voters' List, signature on the declaration in the nomination form expressing willingness to stand for election, deposit of cash or promissory notes of Government as per Rule 8(1) of the Election Rules etc., are some of the defects which are of substantial character. Indeed, sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 deals with some such defects, which are of substantial character in which event the Election Officer shall reject any nomination for the grounds mentioned therein. The first proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 deals with a situation where the defect is not of substantial character. Therefore, if the nomination is rejected on the ground that the name of the candidate and the proposer and the corresponding serial number is not mentioned in the appropriate columns, it cannot be for a defect of substantial character if the candidate otherwise shows that the name of the candidate and the proposer are mentioned in the electoral roll.
27. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3089 of 2000 submits that under Section 79 of the HMC Act, rejection of the nomination is not a ground for election petition. This submission cannot be accepted. Clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 79 empowers the Election Tribunal to declare the election to be void if the election has been materially affected by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the HMC Act or the Corporation Election Rules or orders made under this Act or any other Act or Rules regarding the election. The rejection of nomination by the Election Officer in the Municipal Elections without following or in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules is one, which -squarely falls under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 79 of the HMC Act. Therefore, even a case of improper rejection or reception of nomination in a municipal election is a subject matter of election petition under Section 71 read with Section 79 of the HMC Act.
28. After making few general observations, now I may consider the question of maintainability of the writ petitions. In Writ Petition No.2992 of 2000, by order dated 25-2-2000, I have taken a view that a writ petition questioning an order rejecting the nomination for the office of Chairperson/MayorAVard member is not maintainable. The same reasons therein equally apply here. It is not out of place to recapitulate the law on this question.
29. It is too well settled that an election to a Municipality shall not be called in question in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is what clause (b) of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution says. The said proviso says that an election can be questioned only by way of an election petition before a duly constituted authority in the manner provided for by the law or under any law made by the State Legislature. There cannot be any doubt that a 'challenge to an election' means and includes a challenge to any intermediary stage in the election. These intermediary stages could be 'issue of election notification', filing of nominations, scrutiny of nominations, rejection of nomination, voting on the polling day, declaration of results, declaration of the elected candidates and reconstidition of the municipality by duly designated authorities and authorities specified under the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (the Act, for brevity) and various rules made under Section 326 of the Act. Therefore, any challenge to any order or any act at the intermediary stage of the election can only be made before the duty constituted special Tribunal constituted for the purpose. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 326 of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute an Election Tribunal.
30. In exercise of those powers, Rules for Decision of Election of Disputes, 1967 have been made. Rule 10(c) of the said Rules and Section 79 of HMC Act provide that if the result of the election is materially affected by any irregularity mentioned therein, the Tribunal may declare the election as void. The matters are-
(a) Irregularities in respect of nomination papers;
(b) Improper acceptance/reception of nomination papers;
(c) Improper refusal of nomination papers;
(d) Improper reception or acceptance of vote; or/and
(e) Non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder;
These matters, which materially affect the result of the election, are beyond the purview of jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
31. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, , dealing with the case of rejection of nomination paper, has held that clause (b) of Article 329 (which is in pari materia with Article 243-ZG) bars the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and further held that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over and that if any irregularities are committed while the election is in progress such irregularities vitiating the elections should only be brought before a special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress.
32. Dealing with the provisions of clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution which is in pari materia with clause (b) of Article 243-ZG, the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti, (1995) Supp (2) SCC 305 also took a similar view. Again in Anugrah Narain Singh v. Stale of U.P., , the Supreme Court held as follows:
"No election to a municipality can be questioned except by an election petition. Moreover, it is well settled by now that if the election is imminent or well under way, the Court should not intervene to stop the election process. If this is allowed to be done, no election will ever take place because someone or the other will always find some excuse to move the Court and stall the elections."
33. In State Election Commission v. Ras Bihari Raghuwanshi, , a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the question whether the decision of the Election Officer whether accepting or rejecting the nomination paper is susceptible to review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after referring to the provisions of clause (b) of Article 243-O of the Constitution and various provision of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Election Rules held as under:
"The scheme of Article 243-O(b) read in the light of Rule 33(6) is that the decision of the Returning Officer shall be final, subject to review only by the Election Tribunal in a duly filed Election Petition. The order passed by the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination paper is not susceptible to review at any stage or by any authority other than the Election Tribunal. It is significant to note that the rules do not provide an appeal to the Commission or revision suo motu or otherwise to the Commission against the order of the Returning Officer, These circumstances make it clear that whatever to be amplitude of the power vested in the Commission under Article 243-K and Section 42 of the Act, it does not take in the power of upsetting the final decision arrived at by the Returning Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination paper. The Election Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere at that stage in that matter."
34. In view of this, the writ petitions are not maintainable and they are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Election Tribunal. If an election petition is filed before the Election Tribunal (after the elections are over), within the period of limitation, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of service of notice on the respondents, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.