Himachal Pradesh High Court
Bal Krishan And Others vs State Of H.P. And Others on 15 December, 2015
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
.
CWP No. 4366 of 2015 a/w CWP Nos.
4495,4167,4441, 4452, 4455, 4458, 4459,
4470, 4472, 4475, 4476, 4488, 4489, 4490,
4491, 4494, 4496, 4498, 4499, 4500, 4502,
4508, 4513, 4517, 4518, 4520, 4521, 4528,
4534, 4543, 4546, 4552, 4555, 4559, 4560,
4561, 4579, 4583, 4584, 4587, 4589, 4590,
4599, 4602, 4607, 4608, 4615, 4616, 4614,
of
4618, 4619, 4627, 4628 of 2015.
Judgment reserved on: 07.12.2015
rt Date of Decision : December 15, 2015.
1. CWP No. 4366 of 2015
Bal Krishan and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
2. CWP No. 4495 of 2015
Suresh Patial ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
3. CWP No. 4167 of 2015
Amar Singh and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
4. CWP No. 4441 of 2015
Man Mohan Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
5. CWP No. 4452 of 2015
Baldev Singh Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
6. CWP No. 4455 of 2015
Piar Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
7. CWP No. 4458 of 2015
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
2
Ramesh Chand ...Petitioner
.
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
8. CWP No. 4459 of 2015
Jyoti ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
of
9. CWP No. 4470 of 2015
Mohan Lal ...Petitioner
rt
State of H.P. and others
Versus
. ...Respondents.
10. CWP No. 4472 of 2015
Rakesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
11. CWP No. 4475 of 2015
Kamla Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
12. CWP No. 4476 of 2015
Deepak Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
13. CWP No. 4488 of 2015
Balbir Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
14. CWP No. 4489 of 2015
Ram Parkash Patial and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
15. CWP No. 4490 of 2015
Parvesh Chandel ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
3
16. CWP No. 4491 of 2015
.
Kamal Dev ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
17. CWP No. 4494 of 2015
Pawan Kumar Chandel ...Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
18. CWP No. 4496 of 2015
Pawan Kumar
rt ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
19. CWP No. 4498 of 2015
Daulat Singh Thakur and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
20. CWP No. 4499 of 2015
Shyam Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
21. CWP No. 4500 of 2015
Ramesh Chand ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
22. CWP No. 4502 of 2015
Suman Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
23. CWP No. 4508 of 2015
Dr. Sushant Deshta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
24. CWP No. 4513 of 2015
Krishan Dev Sharma ...Petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
4
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
.
25. CWP No. 4517 of 2015
Ramesh Bhau ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
26. CWP No. 4518 of 2015
of
Gram Panchayat Khanyara ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
rt
27. CWP No. 4520 of 2015
Gram Panchayat Brahlari ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
28. CWP No. 4521 of 2015
Dinesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
29. CWP No. 4528 of 2015
Banarsi Dass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
30. CWP No. 4534 of 2015
Om Parkash Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
31. CWP No. 4543 of 2015
Ashwani Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
32. CWP No. 4546 of 2015
Prem Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
5
33. CWP No. 4552 of 2015
.
Man Dass ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
34. CWP No. 4555 of 2015
Hirmu Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
of
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
35. CWP No. 4559 of 2015
Rajesh rt ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
36. CWP No. 4560 of 2015
Kamal Nayan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
37. CWP No. 4561 of 2015
Geeta Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
38. CWP No. 4579 of 2015
Chain Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
39. CWP No. 4583 of 2015
Ramesh Thakur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
40. CWP No. 4584 of 2015
Ashwani Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
41. CWP No. 4587 of 2015
Seema Devi and another ...Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
6
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
.
42. CWP No. 4589 of 2015
Hari Singh Verma and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
43. CWP No. 4590 of 2015
of
Balraj Singh ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
rt
44. CWP No. 4599 of 2015
Balvinder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
45. CWP No. 4602 of 2015
Harish Chander Lucktoo ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
46. CWP No. 4607 of 2015
Sher Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
47. CWP No. 4608 of 2015
Gram Panchayat Ustehad and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
48. CWP No. 4614 of 2015
Gaurav ...Petitioner
Versus
The Addl. Chief Secretary (Urban Development) and others
. ...Respondents.
49. CWP No. 4615 of 2015
Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
7
50. CWP No. 4616 of 2015
.
Shamshad Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
51. CWP No. 4618 of 2015
Pawan Kumar ...Petitioner
of
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
52. CWP No. 4619 of 2015
rt
Col. Daulat Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
53. CWP No. 4627 of 2015
Ram Swaroop ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
54. CWP No. 4628 of 2015
Santosh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others . ...Respondents.
____________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the petitioner(s) M/s R.K.Gautam, Bimal Gupta, B.C.Negi,
Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocates, with
M/s Gaurav Gautam, Vineet Vashisht,
Pranay Pratap Singh, Abhilasha Kaundal,
Rajiv Rai, Shikha Chauhan, Vinod Thakur,
Tara Singh Chauhan, Kulbhushan Khajuria,
Anand Sharma, Vikas Rathore, Praveen
Chandel, Vijay Kumar Arora, M. L. Sharma,
Ajay Sharma, Chetna Thakur, Sanjay Kumar
Sharma, Daleep Kumar Sharma, Subhash
Sharma, P. D. Nanda, S.C. Sharma, Sushil
Gautam, Onkar Jairath, Ravinder Singh
Jaswal, Surender Sharma, Ramakant
Sharma, Ashwani Sharma, Salochana Rana
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
8
Kaundal, Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Naresh Kaul,
Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Raman Jamalta, Arush
.
Matlotia and Ms. Suman Thakur, Advocates,
for the respective petitioners.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, with
Mr. Anup Rattan, Mr. Romesh Verma, Addl.
Advocate Generals and Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy.
Advocate General, for the respondents-
State.
of
Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms.
Nishi Goel, Advocate, for the State Election
Commission in CWP No. 4366 of 2015.
rt Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for the State
Election Commission in all the cases.
Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Pankaj Negi, Advocate, for respondent
No. 6 in CWP No. 4518 of 2015.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioner(s) have
called in question the constitution; re-constitution; delimitation;
reservation of the respective Panchayat areas; merger of
Panchayats with Municipal areas and vice versa; change of
headquarters of Gram Panchayats; amalgamation and alteration of
respective Panchayat areas, on the ground that such action has
been taken by the respondents in violation to the Himachal
Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Himachal Pradesh Panchayati
Raj (Election) Rules, 1994, Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968
etc.
2. Learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of these petitions, in view of
the dates of the elections for the second phase having been duly
notified, whereby the elections are to be conducted on 1st, 3rd and
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
9
5th January, 2016, save and except where the elections took place
.
during the first phase and District Kangra, Pangi and Bharmour
Block of Chamba where elections are due in June, 2016, where the
elections have yet not been notified. The learned Advocate
General in support of his submissions has relied upon the various
of
provisions of the Constitution of India, more particularly Article 243-
O to argue that since Article 243-O starts with non-obstante clause,
rt
therefore, the other provisions of the Constitution including Article
226 thereof will not apply to the subject matter covered by the
aforesaid provisions and consequently, all these petitions are not
maintainable.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioners would vehemently argue that the power of the judicial
review as vests with this Court under Article 226 has not taken
away even by Article 243-O, more particularly when the action of
the respondents is in derogation and conflict and without following
the procedure of the Act and Rules governing the same.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have gone through the records of the case.
4. For the purpose of deciding whether the bar contained
in Article 243-O operates against the power vested in the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue
directions, orders or writs including writs in the nature of
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari or any of them
for the enforcement of any right conferred by part III of the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
10
Constitution or for any other purpose, it will be useful to notice the
.
relevant constitutional and legal provisions.
5. Part III of the Constitution contains various fundamental
rights guaranteed to the citizens and other persons. Part IV
enumerates the Directive Principles of State Policy. By virtue of
of
Article 37, it has been declared that the provisions contained in
Part IV are not enforceable by any Court, but the principles
rt
contained therein are fundamental in the governance of the country
and it is the duty of the State to apply the same in making laws.
Article 40, which forms part of the Directive Principles of State
Policy, ordains the States to take steps to organize village
Panchayats and endow them with powers and authority necessary
to enable them to function as units of self-government. To achieve
this goal, the legislature of State of Himachal Pradesh had enacted
various laws including the Himachal Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act,
1968, The Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules,
1971 and Himachal Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968. Likewise, the
legislatures of all other States enacted similar legislations.
6. Thereafter, the Parliament enacted Constitution
(Seventy-third Amendment) Act 1992 and Constitution (Seventy-
fourth Amendment) Act, 1992 whereby Parts DC and IX-A were
added to the Constitution. With these amendments, Panchayats
and Municipal Bodies have been declared as units of self-
Government. The provisions contained in these two parts are of
far reaching significance. The same are intended to make the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
11
Panchayats and Municipal Bodies fully autonomous partners in the
.
governance of the nation.
7. Article 243(d) defines the term "Panchayat", as an
institution of self-Government constituted under Article 243-B of the
rural areas. Article 243-B provides for constitution of Panchayats.
of
Article 243-C relates to composition of Panchayats; Article 243-D
regulates reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
rt
Tribes. Article 243-E prescribes duration of
Panchayats. Article 243-G enumerates power, authority and
responsibility of Panchayats. Article 243-H contemplates that the
legislature of the State may, by law, authorize a Panchayat to levy,
collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tolls and fee. It also
postulates making of a provision for grant-in-aid to the Panchayats
and constitution of Panchayat fund. Article 243-I provides for
constitution of Finance Commission to review financial position of
the Panchayats and to make recommendations to the Government
on various matters specified in that Article. Article 243-K regulates
elections to the Panchayats. Article 243-M declares that provisions
of Part IX shall not apply to the Scheduled Areas. Clause (4)
thereof empowers the legislature of a State to enact law for
extending the provisions of Part IX to the Scheduled Areas and
Tribal Areas. Article 243-O which begins with a non-obstante
clause contains a bar to the Court's interference in electoral
matters.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
12
8. To bring the existing legislations in tune with the
.
provisions contained in Part IX of the Constitution, the Himachal
Pradesh State legislature enacted the 1994 Act and repealed the
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1968, the Himachal
Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1971 and Himachal
of
Pradesh Municipal Act, 1968.
9. Chapter-III of the 1994 Act contains provisions relating
rt
to constitution, administration and control of Gram Panchayats.
Section 120 lays down the duration of Panchayats. Section 125 of
the Act provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women. Sections 12,
13, 14 and 15 prescribe the procedure for preparation and
publication of electoral roll for a Gram Panchayat. Chapters XI
and X-A of 1994 Act contains provisions relating to constitution of
State Election Commission, conduct of elections and election
offences. Section 162 contains a prohibition against challenge to
elections except by way of an election petition. Chapter-CIII
contains special provisions relating to the Panchayats. Section
186 empowers the Government to make rules to carry out all or
any of the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the powers vested in
it under Sections 183 and 186 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati
Raj Act, 1994, the Government of Himachal Pradesh framed the
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (for
short, 'the 1994 Rules'). Rule 93 of these Rules contains a
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
13
reiteration to the bar against challenge to the election held under
.
the 1994 Act except by an election petition.
10. Articles 243(d), 243-D, 243-E, 243-K(1), 243-M(1) and
(4), Article 243-O and Article 329 of the Constitution and Sections
119, 125, 160, 162 and 192 of the 1994 Act, which have bearing on
of
the decision of this petition, read as under:-
Constitution of India.
rt
243(d) "Panchayat" means an institution (by whatever name
called) of self-Government constituted under Article 243-B, for
the rural areas.
243-D. Reservation of seats:
(1) Seats shall be reserved for-
(a) the Scheduled Castes; and
(b) the Scheduled Tribes,
(2) Not less than one-third of the total number of seats reserved
under Clause (1) shall be reserved for women belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the
Scheduled Tribes.
(3) Not less than one-third (including the number of seats
reserved for women belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) of the total number
of seats to be filled by direct election in every Panchayat shall be
reserved for women and such seats may be allotted by rotation
to different constituencies in a Panchayat.
(4) The offices of the Chairpersons in the Panchayats at the
village or any other level shall be reserved for the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Women in such manner as
the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide:
Provided that the number of offices of Chairpersons
reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in
the Panchayats at each level in any State shall bear, as nearly
as may be, the same proportion to the total number of such
offices in the Panchayats at each level as the population of the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
14
Scheduled Castes in the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the
State bears to the total population of the State;
.
Provided further that not less than one-third of the total
number of offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at each
level shall be reserved for women: Provided also that the number
of offices reserved under this clause shall be allotted by rotation
to different Panchayats at the each level.
of
(5) The reservation of seats under Clauses (1) and (2) and the
reservation of offices of Chairpersons (other than the reservation
for women) under Clause (4) shall cease to have effect on the
expiration of the period specified in Article 334.
rt
(6) Nothing in this Part shall prevent the Legislature of a State
from making any provision for reservation of seats in any
Panchayat or offices of Chairpersons in the Panchayats at any
level in favour of backward class of citizens.
243-E. Duration of Panchayats etc :-(1) Every Panchayat, unless
sooner dissolved under any law for the time being in force, shall
continue for five years from the date appointed for its first
meeting and no longer.
(2) No amendment of any law for the time being in force shall
have the effect of causing dissolution of a Panchayat at any
level, which is functioning immediately before such amendment,
till the expiration of its duration specified in Clause (1).
(3) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed- (a)
before the expiry of its duration specified in Clause (1) : (b)
before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of
its dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which
the dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six
months, it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this
clause for constituting the Panchayat for such period.
(4) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat
before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the
remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayat would
have continued under Clause (1) had it not been so dissolved.
243-K. Elections of the Panchayats:-The superintendence,
direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and
the conduct of, all elections to the Panchayats shall be vested in
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
15
a State Election Commission consisting of a State Election
Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
.
243-M. Part not to apply to certain areas:- (1) Nothing in this Part
shall apply to the Scheduled Areas referred to in Clause (1), and
the Tribal Areas referred to in Clause (2), of Article 244.
(2)...
(3)...
of
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(a) the Legislature of a State referred to in Sub-clause (a) of
Clause (2) may, by law, extend this Part to that State, except the
rt
areas, if any, referred to in Clause (1), if the Legislative
Assembly of that State passes a resolution to that effect by a
majority of the total membership of that House and by a
majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House
present and voting;
(b) Parliament may, by law, extend the provisions of this Part to
the Scheduled Areas and the Tribal Areas referred to in Clause
(1) subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be
specified in such law, and no such law shall be deemed to be an
amendment of this Constitution for the purposes
of Article 368.
243-O. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters:-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies,
made or purporting to be made under Article 243K, shall not be
called in question in any Court;
(b) no election to any Panchayat shall be called in question
except by an election petition presented to such authority and in
such manner as is provided for by or under any law made by the
Legislature of a State.
329. Bar to interference by Courts in electoral matters:-
Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-
(a) the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of
constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies,
made or purporting to be made under Article 327 or Article 328,
shall not be called in question in any Court:
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
16
(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or
either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in
.
question except by an election-petition presented to such
authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under
any law made by the appropriate Legislature."
Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994
Section 8. Constitution of Gram Panchayats.- (1) There shall
of
be a Gram Panchayat for a Gram Sabha and every Gram Sabha
shall, in the prescribed manner, elect from amongst its members
a Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Sabha who shall also be
rt
called the Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and
shall also elect from amongst its members an Executive
Committee called the Gram Panchayat consisting of such
number of persons not being less than seven and more than
fifteen, including Pradhan and Up-Pradhan, as the Government
may by notification determine:
Provided that the number of members excluding Pradhan
and Up-Pradhan to be assigned to each Gram Sabha, shall be
determined on the following scale:-
(a) with a population not exceeding 1750 .. five
(b) with a population exceeding 1750 but not exceeding 2750 ..
seven
(c) with a population exceeding 2750 but not exceeding 3750 ..
nine
(d) with a population exceeding 3750 but not exceeding 4750 ..
eleven
(e) with a population exceeding 4750 ..thirteen:
Provided further that the number of members of a Gram
Panchayat, excluding Pradhan and Up-Pradhan, shall be
determined in such a manner that the ratio between the
population of the Gram Sabha and the number of seats of
members in such a Panchayat to be filled by election shall, so far
as practicable, be the same throughout the Sabha area:
Provided further that the member of the Panchayat Samiti,
representing a part or whole of the Gram Sabha area shall also
be the member of the concerned Gram Panchayat(s) and shall
have the right to vote.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
17
(2) Seats shall be reserved in a Gram Panchayat--
(a) for the Scheduled Castes, and
.
(b) for the Scheduled Tribes, and the number of seats so
reserved shall bear, as nearly as may be, same proportion to the
total number of seats in the Gram Panchayat as the population
of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in the Sabha
area bears to the total population of the Sabha area:
of
Provided that in case no reservation of seats is possible
as aforesaid due to small population of the Scheduled Castes
and the population of Scheduled Castes of the Sabha area is
atleast five percent of the total population of the Sabha area, one
rt
seat shall be reserved for the Scheduled Castes in such a Gram
Panchayat:
Provided further that where there is no eligible candidate
belonging to the Scheduled Castes to be elected as a member of
the Gram Panchayat, no seat shall be reserved for Scheduled
Castes:
Provided further that in non-tribal areas where there is
Scheduled Tribes population in a Gram Sabha, seats shall be
reserved for such members of the Scheduled Tribes within the
reservation provided for the members of the Scheduled Castes
and the determination of seats to be reserved amongst the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be in proportion to
their population in that Gram Sabha.
Explanation.- The expression "non-tribal area" for the
purpose of this proviso shall mean the areas other than the
Scheduled Areas specified in relation to the State of Himachal
Pradesh.
(3) One-half of the total number of seats reserved under
subsection (2) shall be reserved for women belonging to the
Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes.
(3-A) One-half (including the number of seats reserved for
women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes) of the total number of seats to be filled by direct election
in every Gram Panchayat shall be reserved for women.
(4) The State Government may, by general or special order,
reserve such number of seats for persons belonging to
Backward Classes in a Gram Panchayat, not exceeding the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
18
proportion to the total number of seats to be filled by direct
election in the Gram Panchayat as the population of the
.
persons belonging to Backward Classes in that Gram Sabha
area bears to the total population of that area and may further
reserve one-half of the total seats reserved under this sub-
section for women belonging to Backward Classes.
(5) The seats reserved under sub-sections (2), 5[(3), (3-A)] and
of
(4) shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies in the
Sabha area in such manner as may be prescribed.
(6) If for any reason the election to any Gram Panchayat does
not result in the election of required number of persons as
rt
specified in sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner, shall
within one month from the date on which the names of the
elected persons are published by him under section 126
arrange another election to make up the deficiency.
120. Duration of Panchayats.- (1) Every Panchayat shall
continue for five years from the date appointed for its first
meeting and no longer unless sooner dissolved under this Act.
(2) An election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed-
(a) before the expiry of its duration specified in sub-section (1);
and
(b) before the expiration of a period of six months from the date
of its dissolution:
Provided that where the remainder of the period for which the
dissolved Panchayat would have continued is less than six
months it shall not be necessary to hold any election under this
clause for constituting the Panchayat for such period.
(3) A Panchayat constituted upon the dissolution of a Panchayat
before the expiration of its duration shall continue only for the
remainder of the period for which the dissolved Panchayats,
would have continued under sub-section (1) had it not been so
dissolved.
125. Reservation for Chairpersons.- (1) There shall be
reserved by the Government, in the prescribed manner such
number of offices of Chairpersons in Panchayats at every level in
the State for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and the number of such offices, bearing as
may be the same proportion to the total number of
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
19
offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes in
the State or of the Scheduled Tribes in the State bears to the
.
population of the State.
(2) [One-half] of offices of Chairpersons reserved in each
category, for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and of the non-reserved offices in the
Panchayats at every level shall be reserved for
of
women.
(3) The State Government may, by general or special order,
reserve such number of offices of chairpersons for persons
belonging to Backward Classes in Panchayats at every level, not
rt
exceeding the proportion to the total number of offices to be filled
by direct election in the Panchayat as the population of the
persons belonging to Backward Classes in the State bears to
the total population of the State and may further reserve [one-
half] of the total seats reserved under this sub-section for women
belonging to Backward Classes.
(4) The offices of Chairpersons reserved under sub-sections (1),
(2) and (3) shall be allotted by rotation to different constituencies
in the district in such manner as may be prescribed.
Explanation.- For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that
the principle of rotation for the purposes of reservation of office
under this section shall commence from the first election to be
held after the commencement of this Act.
160. State Election Commission.- (1) There shall be a State
Election Commission constituted by the Governor for
superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of
electoral rolls for, and the conduct of all elections to the
Panchayat bodies in the State under this Act and the rules made
thereunder. The Commission shall consist of a State Election
Commissioner to be appointed by the Governor.
(2) The salary and allowances payable to, tenure of office and
conditions of service of the State Election Commissioner shall be
such as the Governor may by rule determine:
Provided that the State Election Commissioner shall not
be removed from his office except in the like manner and on the
like grounds as a judge of the High Court and the conditions of
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
20
service of the State Election Commissioner shall not be varied to
his disadvantage after his appointment.
.
(3) The Governor shall, when so requested by the State Election
Commissioner make available to him such staff as may be
necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on him
under this Act.
182. Bar of interference by Courts in election matters.
of
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the validity] of
any law relating to the delimitation of constituencies, or the
allotment of seats in such constituencies, made or purported to
be made under this Act shall not be called in question in any
rt
Court."
11. Before proceeding further, we consider it proper to
observe that even though Section 182 of 1994 Act contains a bar
against challenge to the election except by an election petition, the
same does not in any manner impinge on the High Court's power
to issue appropriate directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
12. However, the moot question which requires
determination is-whether the bar to Court's interference in electoral
matters contained in Article 243-O operates qua the High Court's
power of judicial review under Article 226.
13. A plain reading of the language of Article 243-O makes
it clear that the ambit and reach of the bar contained therein is very
wide and pervasive. The non-obstante clause contained in that
article excludes all other provisions of the Constitution, which
necessarily include Article 226. It lays down that the validity of any
law relating to the delimitation of constituencies or the allotment of
seats to such constituencies made or purporting to be made under
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
21
Article 243-K shall not be called in question in any Court. It also
.
declares that no election to any Panchayat shall be called in
question except by an election petition presented to such authority
and in such manner as provided for by or under any law made by
the Legislature of a State. In other words, the power of the judicial
of
review conferred upon the High Courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not available to an aggrieved person until
rt
after the adjudication of the election dispute by an authority
constituted under the law enacted by the Legislature of the
concerned State.
14. To put it differently, any challenge to the election or any
election dispute can be adjudicated in the first instance only by an
authority constituted by or under any law made by the Legislature
of a State and not otherwise. The High Court can entertain writ
petition against an adjudicatory order made by the Tribunal etc.
constituted under the State Legislation, but cannot entertain a
petition directly filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
questioning the law relating to delimitation of constituencies or the
allotment of seats or election to any Panchayat.
15. The reason why the Parliament did not want any
judicial intervention in the process of election is clearly discernible
from the scheme of various provisions contained in Part DC. While
making the Panchayats as units of self-Government, the
Parliament also ensured that they are controlled by democratically
elected bodies having a fixed tenure of five years.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
22
16. These provisions are also reflective of the legislative
.
intendment that the electorates of the Panchayats should be able
to exercise their franchise to choose the candidates of their choice
at the end of five years period, if not before. While enacting Clause
(3) of Article 243-E, which, as mentioned above, mandates that
of
election to constitute a Panchayat shall be completed before expiry
of its duration of five years, the Parliament must have taken into
rt
consideration that the provisions contained in various statutes for
appointment of administrative and executive officers to manage the
affairs of the local bodies in urban as well as rural areas at the end
of the term of the elected bodies and the fact that these provisions
are generally misused and efforts are made by the interested
parties and persons to deprive the people of their right to choose
their representatives. The Parliament must also have taken note of
the fact that process of election to various bodies including
Panchayats, which are intended to be units of self-Government, is
often frustrated by judicial interventions at various stages like
delimitation of constituencies, issuance of notification for holding
election, preparation and publication of the electoral rolls, filing of
nomination papers, actual poll, counting of votes and declaration of
result. Therefore, with a view to ensure that the elections to the
Panchayats, which have been declared as units of self
Government, are held without interruption on account of
intermediate/ interlocutory judicial interventions, the Parliament
designedly enacted Article 243-O and introduced a complete bar to
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
23
Courts' interference in the electoral matters and also incorporated
.
non-obstante clause which operates qua all other provisions
contained in the Constitution.
17. It could be well conceived that in case the Parliament
intended to exclude Article 226 from the purview of
of
the non-obstante clause contained in Article 243-O, then the
language of that Article would have been like that of Articles 116,
rt
120, 128, 133(2), (3), 136, 145, 170(1), 196, 197(3), 204(3), 206,
210, 224-A, 226(1), 231(1), 239(2), 243-M(1), 243-N, 243-ZC,
246(1) and (2), 247, 249(1), 250(1), 253, 266(1), 271, 276(1), 301,
303(1), 304, 312(1), 317(1), 330(3), 331, 332(B), 333, 334, 343(1),
345, 348(1), (2), 376(1) and 378-A, wherein the non-obstante
clauses contained in these Articles have limited operation. For
example, non-obstante clause contained in Article 116 operates
against the provisions contained in Chapter II of Part IV. Similarly,
the non-obstante clause contained in Article 120 operates against
the provisions contained in Part XVII. Against this, the non-
obstante clauses contained in Articles 243-O, 243-ZG, 244-A,
258(1), 258-A, 262(2), 329, 363, 363-A, 368, 369, 371(2), 371-
A(1), (2), 371-B, 371-C, 371-F, 371-H and 371-I are very wide. The
expression used in these articles is "notwithstanding anything
contained in this Constitution". This means that the provisions
contained therein operate against all other articles of the
Constitution. If the non-obstante clause contained in Article 243-O
and similar clause contained in Article 243-ZG is interpreted in the
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
24
backdrop of the fact that the Parliament did not want
.
intermediary/interlocutory judicial interventions in the process of
election which constitutes an integral part of the democratic set up
of our country, it becomes clear that the High Court's power of
judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is postponed in
of
the matters involving challenge to delimitation of constituencies or
allotment of seats or election to Panchayats until after completion
rt
of the process of election and adjudication of election dispute by an
adjudicatory forum created under the law enacted by the
Legislature of the State.
18. Having noticed the various provisions of the
Constitution as also the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,
1994, we may now proceed to notice certain judicial
pronouncements on the subject.
19. In N.P. Ponnuswami Vs. Returning Officer, AIR 1952
SC 64, the Hon'ble Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the inherent restriction of exercise of writ jurisdiction
in election matters are recognized and the word "election" is used
to embrace the whole procedure of election and is not confined to
final result thereof. It was further held that the law does not
contemplate two attacks on matters connected with election, one
under Article 226 during the process of election and the other when
it is completed by election petition under Representation of the
People Act. It was held that rejection or acceptance of nomination
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
25
paper cannot be called in question under Article 226 of the
.
Constitution of India.
20. Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Meghraj Kothari Vs. Delimitation Commission and others AIR
1967 SC 669, held that once the orders of delimitation had been
of
made and published in the official gazette, then these matters
could no longer be re-agitated in a Court of law, because in case
rt
these orders were not treated as final, the effect would be that any
voter could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the
delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. It was
observed that:-
"19. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of
constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission
before the date specified. Once the orders made by the
Commission under Ss.8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of
India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned, these
matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There
seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the
orders made under Ss. 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final,
the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up
an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the
constituencies from court to court. Section 10(2) of the Act
clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the
orders under Ss. 8 and 9 published under S. 10 (1) were to be
treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court."
21. The decision in Ponnuswami (supra) was followed in
number of decisions and subsequently in case of Mohinder Singh
Gill Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405,
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
26
another Hon'ble Constitution Bench considered the ambit of the bar
.
contained in Article 329 (b) of the Constitution and it was held that:-
"28. What emerges from this perspicacious reasoning, if we may
say so with great respect, is that any decision sought and
rendered will not amount to 'calling in question' an election if it
subserves the progress of the election and facilitates the
of
completion of the election. 'Ale should not slur over the quite
essential observation "-Anything done towards the completion of
the election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be
rt
described as questioning the election. Likewise, it is fallacious to
treat 'a single step taken in furtherance of an election as
equivalent to election.
29. Thus, there are two types of decisions, two types of
challenges. The first relates to proceedings which interfere with
the progress of the election. The second accelerates the
completion of the election and acts in furtherance of an election.
So, the short question before us, in the light of the illumination
derived from Ponnuswami, is as to whether the order for re-poll
of the Chief Election Commissioner is "anything done towards
the completion of the election proceeding' and whether the
proceedings before the High Court facilitated the election
process or halted its progress. The question immediately arises
as to whether the relief sought in, the writ petition by the present
appellant amounted to calling in question the election. This, in
turn, revolves round the point as to whether the cancellation of
the poll and the reordering of fresh poll is 'part of election' and
challenging it is 'calling it in question'.
30. The plenary bar of Art. 329 (b) rests on two principles: (1)
The peremptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole
election process without intermediate interruptions by way of
legal proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between
the commencement and the conclusion. (2) The provision of a
special jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrieved party
at the end of the election excludes other form, the right and
remedy being creatures of statutes and controlled by the
Constitution. Durga Shankar Mehta(1) has affirmed this position
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
27
and supplemented it by holding that, once the Election Tribunal
has decided, the prohibition is extinguished and the Supreme
.
Court's over-all power to interfere under Art. 136 springs into,
action. In Hari Vishnu(2) this Court upheld the rule in
Ponnuswami excluding any proceeding, including one under Art.
226, during the on- going process of election, understood in the
comprehensive sense of notification down to declaration. Beyond
of
the declaration comes the election petition, but beyond the
decision of the Tribunal the ban of Art. 329(b) does not bind.
31. If 'election' bears the larger connotation, if 'calling in question'
rt
possesses a semantic sweep in plain English, if policy and
principle are tools for interpretation of statutes, language
permitting the conclusion is irresistible' even though the
argument contra may have emotional impact and ingenious
appeal, that the catch-all jurisdiction under Art. 226 cannot
consider the correctness, legality or otherwise of the direction for
cancellation integrated with re-poll. For, the prima facie
purpose of such a re-poll was to restore a detailed Poll process
and to, complete it through the salvationary effort of a repoll.
Whether in fact or law, the order is validly made within his
powers or violative of natural justice can be examined later by
the appointed instrumentality, viz., the Election Tribunal. That
aspect will be explained presently. We proceed on the footing
that re-poll in one polling station or it many polling stations for
good reasons, is lawful. This shows that re-poll in
many or all segments, all- pervasive or isolated, can be lawful.
We are not considering whether the act was bad for other
reasons. We are concerned only to say that if the regular poll, for
some reasons, has failed to reach the goal of choosing by
plurality the returned candidate and to achieve this object a fresh
poll (not a new election) is needed, it may still be a step in the
election. The deliverance of Dunkirk is part of the strategy of
counter-attack. Wise or valid, is another matter.
32. On the assumption, but leaving the question of the validity of
the direction for re-poll soon for determination by the Election
Tribunal, we hold that a writ petition challenging the cancellation
coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a step in
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
28
'election! and is there, fore barred by Art. 329(b). If no re-poll had
been directed the legal perspective would have been very
.
different. The mere cancellation would have then thwarted the
course of the election and different considerations would have
come into play. We need not chase a hypothetical case."
22. In Nanhoo Mal Vs. Hira Mal, AIR 1975 SC 2140, it
was held that after the decision in N.P. Ponnuswami's case
of
(supra), there is hardly any room for Courts to entertain
applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating
rt
the election.
23. In Sundarajas Kanyalal Bhathua Vs. Collector,
Thane, AIR 1990 SC 261, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the exercise of delimitation of municipal area is a
legislative function, therefore, the right of hearing or principle of
natural justice is not applicable.
24. In State of U.P. and others Vs. Pradhan Sangh
Kshettra Samiti, AIR 1995 SC 1512, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that after publication of notification of delimitation, the bar
under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India operates and
therefore, neither the delimitation of the Panchayat areas nor of the
constituencies in the said area and allotment of seats to the
constituencies could have been challenged or the Court could have
entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the
delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given.
Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the
notification to hold the election was issued. The Hon'ble Supreme
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
29
Court refused to interfere in the matter of delimitation of
.
constituencies after publication of the notification of delimitation of
Panchayat areas even where the writ petitions had been filed prior
to the notification of election. It was held that:
"11......
of
It is for the Government to decide in what manner the
panchayat areas and the constituencies in each panchayat area
will be delimited. It is not for the court to dictate the manner in
and
rt
which the same would be done. So long as the panchayat areas
the constituencies are delimited in conformity
with the constitutional provisions or without committing a breach
thereof, the courts cannot interfere with the same. We may, in
this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in The
Hingir-Rampur Coal Co, Ltd. and Others v. The State of Orissa
and Others [(1961) 2 SCR 537]. In this case, the petitioner mine
owners, had among others, challenged the method prescribed by
the legislature for recovering the cess under the Orissa Mining
Areas Development Fund Act, 1952 on the ground that it was un-
constitutional. The majority of the Bench held that the method is
a matter of convenience and, though relevant, has to be tested in
the light of other relevant circumstances. It is not permissible to
challenge the vires of a statute solely on the ground that the
method adopted for the recovery of the impost can and generally
is adopted in levying a duty of excise.
What is more objectionable in the approach of the High
Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-0 of the
Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in
electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any
law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies
or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or
purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any
panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the
validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the
allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a
decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation
Commission & Ors. (1967) 1 SCR 400. In that case, a
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
30
notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which
had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for the
.
Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the
petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the
said constituency which had been taken away. This Court held
that the impugned notification was a law relating to the
delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to
of
such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution,
and that an examination of sections 8 and 9 of the
Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters therein
dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law.
rt
There was a very good reason for such a provision because if
the orders made under sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated
as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could
hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of
the constituencies from court to court. Although an order under
Section 8 or 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act and published
under Section 10 [1] of that Act is not part of an Act of
Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10 [4] of that Act puts
such an order in the same position as a law made by the
Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article
327. If we read Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-0 in place o Article
327 and sections 2 [kk], 11-F and 12-BB of the Act in place of
Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be obvious
that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the
constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to
the constituencies could have been challenged or the Court
could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that
before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no
hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have been
entertained after the notification for holding the elections was
issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but
has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although
the challenge was made after the notification for the
election was issued on 31st August, 1994."
25 In Anugrah Narain Singh & another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & others (1996) 6 SCC 303 the Hon'ble Supreme
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
31
Court on interpretation of Article 243-ZG of the Constitution, held
.
that once the process of election has been set into motion, the
Court should not intervene to stop election in the midway. It is apt
to reproduce para 24, which read thus:-
"24. The validity of Sections 6-A, 31, 32 and 33 of the U.P.
of
Act dealing with delimitation of wards cannot be questioned in a
court of law because of the express bar imposed by Article 243-
ZG of the Constitution. Section 7 contains rules for allotment of
rt
seats to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the
Backward Class people. The validity of that Section cannot also
be challenged. That apart, in the instant case, when the
delimitation of the wards was made, such delimitation was not
challenged on the ground of colourable exercise of power or on
any other ground of arbitrariness. Any such challenge should
have been made as soon as the final order was published in the
Gazette after objections to the draft order were considered
and not after the notification for holding of the elections was
issued. As pointed out in Lakshmi Charan Sen's Case, that the
fact that certain claims and objections had not been disposed of
before the final order was passed, cannot arrest the process of
election."
26. In Jaspal Singh Arora Vs. State of M.P. and others
(1998) 9 SCC 594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, set aside the order
of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground that bar
contained under Article 243-ZG was overlooked. It was held that:-
"3. These appeals must be allowed on a short ground. In view of
the mode of challenging the election by an election petition being
prescribed by the M.P. Municipalities Act, it is clear that the
election could not be called in question except by an election
petition as provided under that Act. The bar to interference by
courts in electoral matters contained in Article 243-ZG of the
Constitution was apparently overlooked by the High Court in
allowing the writ petition. Apart from the bar under Article 243-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
32
ZG, on settled principles interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution for the purpose of setting aside election to a
.
municipality was not called for because of the statutory provision
for election petition and also the fact that an earlier writ petition
for the same purpose by a defeated candidate has been
dismissed by the High Court."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commission
of
of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and others AIR 2000 SC 2977 further
elaborated the observations made in Mohinder Singh Gill's case
rt
(supra) and observed as under:-
"22. In Lakshmi Charan Sen Vs. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (AIR
1985 SC 1233) writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
were filed before the High Court asking for the writs of
mandamus and certiorari, directing that the instructions issued
by the Election Commission should not be implemented by the
Chief Electoral Officer and others; that the revision of electoral
rolls be undertaken de novo; that claims, objections and appeals
in regard to the electoral roll be heard and disposed of in
accordance with the rules; and that, no notification be issued
under S.15(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
calling for election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly,
until the rolls were duly revised. The High Court entertained the
petitions and gave interim orders. The writ petitioners had also
laid challenge to validity of several provisions of Acts and Rules,
which challenge was given up before the Supreme Court. The
Constitution Bench held though the High Court was justified in
entertaining the writ petition and issuing a rule therein since, the
writ petition apparently contained a challenge to several
provisions of Election Laws, it was not justified in passing any
order which would have the effect of postponing the elections
which were then imminent. Even assuming, therefore, that the
preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a
part of the process of election within the meaning of Article
329(b), we must reiterate our view that the High Court ought not
to have passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it not only
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP
33
assumed control over the election process but, as a result of
which, the election to the Legislative Assembly stood the risk of
.
being postponed indefinitely.
23. In Election Commission of India Vs. State of Haryana AIR
1984 SC 1406 the Election Commission fixed the date of election
and proposed to issue the requisite notification. The Government
of Haryana filed a writ petition in the High Court and secured an
of
ex-parte order staying the issuance and publication of the
notification by the Election Commission of India under Sections
30, 56 and 150 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
This Court deprecated granting of such ex-parte orders. During
rt
the course of its judgment (vide para 8) the majority speaking
through the Chief Justice observed that it was not suggested that
the Election Commission could exercise its discretion
in an arbitrary or mala fide manner; arbitrariness and mala fide
destroy the validity and efficacy of all orders passed by public
authorities. The minority view was recorded by M.P. Thakkar, J.
quoting the following extract from A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (1982) 2 SCC 218 :-
"The imminence of the electoral process is a factor which must guide and govern the passing of orders in the exercise of the High Courts writ jurisdiction. The more imminent such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance of the High Court to do anything, or direct anything to be done, which will postpone that process indefinitely by creating a situation in which, the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution."
and held that even according to Hassans case the Court has the power to issue an interim order which has the effect of postponing an election but it must be exercised sparingly (with reluctance) particularly when the result of the order would be to postpone the installation of a democratic elected popular Government.
24. In Digvijay Mote Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 175 this Court has held that the powers conferred on the Election Commission are not unbridled; judicial review will be permissible over the statutory body, i.e., the Election Commission exercising ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 34 its functions affecting public law rights though the review will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case; the .
power conferred on the Election Commission by Article 324 has to be exercised not mindlessly nor mala fide nor arbitrarily nor with partiality but in keeping with the guidelines of the rule of law and not stultifying the Presidential notification nor existing legislation.
of
25. Anugrah Narain Singh and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. - 1996 (6) SCC 303 is a case relating to municipal elections in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Barely one week before the voting was scheduled to commence, in the writ petitions complaining of rt defects in the electoral rolls and de-limitation of constituencies and arbitrary reservation of constituencies for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and backward classes the High Court passed interim order stopping the election process. This Court quashed such interim orders and observed 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. The importance of holding elections at regular intervals cannot be over-emphasised. If holding of elections is allowed to stall on the complaint of a few individuals, then grave injustice will be done to crores of other voters who have a right to elect their representatives to the democratic bodies.
26. In C. Subrahmanyam Vs. K. Ramanjaneyullu and Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 703 this Court has held that non-compliance of a provision of the Act governing the elections being a ground for an election petition, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not have been entertained.
27. In Mohinder Singh Gills case (supra) the Election Commission had cancelled a poll and directed a re-polling. The Constitution Bench held that a writ petition challenging the cancellation coupled with repoll amounted to calling in question a step in election and is therefore barred by Article 329 (b). However, vide para 32, it has been observed that had it been a case of mere cancellation without an order for repoll, the course of election would have been thwarted (by the Election ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 35 Commission itself) and different considerations would have come into play.
.
28. Election disputes are not just private civil disputes between two parties. Though there is an individual or a few individuals arrayed as parties before the Court but the stakes of the constituency as a whole are on trial. Whichever way the lis terminates it affects the fate of the constituency and the citizens of generally. A conscientious approach with overriding consideration for welfare of the constituency and strengthening the democracy is called for. Neither turning a blind eye to the controversies which have arisen nor assuming a role of over- rt enthusiastic activist would do. The two extremes have to be avoided in dealing with election disputes.
29. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 needs to be read with Article 329 (b), the former being a product of the later. The sweep of Section 100 spelling out the legislative intent would assist us in determining the span of Article 329 (b) though the fact remains that any legislative enactment cannot curtail or override the operation of a provision contained in the Constitution. Section 100 is the only provision within the scope of which an attack on the validity of the election must fall so as to be a ground available for avoiding an election and depriving the successful candidate of his victory at the polls. The Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gills case (vide para 33) asks us to read Section 100 widely as covering the whole basket of grievances of the candidates. Sub-clause (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 is a residual catch-all clause. Whenever there has been non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or of any rules or orders made thereunder if not specifically covered by any other preceding clause or sub-clause of the Section it shall be covered by sub-clause (iv). The result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate shall be set aside for any such non-compliance as abovesaid subject to such non-compliance also satisfying the requirement of the result of the election having been shown to have been materially affected insofar as a returned candidate is concerned. The conclusions which inevitably follow are: in the field of election jurisprudence, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 36 ignore such things as do not materially affect the result of the election unless the requirement of satisfying the test of material .
effect has been dispensed with by the law; even if the law has been breached and such breach satisfies the test of material effect on the result of the election of the returned candidate yet postpone the adjudication of such dispute till the election proceedings are over so as to achieve, in larger public interest, of the goal of constituting a democratic body without interruption or delay on account of any controversy confined to an individual or group of individuals or single constituency having arisen and demanding judicial determination.
rt
30. To what extent Article 329 (b) has an overriding effect on Article 226 of the Constitution? The two Constitution Benches have held that Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for only one remedy; that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. The non- obstante clause with which Article 329 opens pushes out Article 226 where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election (see para 25 of Mohinder Singh Gills case, supra). The provisions of the Constitution and the Act read together do not totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the Court so as to have the wrong done remedied by invoking the judicial forum; nevertheless the lesson is that the election rights and remedies are statutory, ignore the trifles even if there are irregularities or illegalities, and knock the doors of the courts when the election proceedings in question are over. Two- pronged attack on anything done during the election proceedings is to be avoided--one during the course of the proceedings and the other at its termination, for such two pronged attack, if allowed, would unduly protract or obstruct the functioning of democracy.
31. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words no election shall be called in question in the body of Section 329 (b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329 (b). If the petition presented to the Court calls in question an election the bar of Article 329 (b) is attracted. Else it is not."
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 3728. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Election Commission's .
case (supra) after detailed consideration with regard to the power to be exercised by the Courts in matters relating to elections in para 32 of the said judgment summarized the following general principles:-
of "32. For convenience sake we would now generally sum up our conclusions by partly restating what the two Constitution rt 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 subserves 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 38 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 of 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 rt 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."
29. In Jasbir Hussain Nasir Ahmed Boga Vs. State of Gujarat & others, AIR 2006 Gujarat 53, Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the bar imposed by Article 243-ZG, which is pari materia with the bar under Article 243-O (a) of the Constitution is absolute and the resolution of any dispute pertaining to an election which has the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election shall be postponed until after the completion of the election. The Court shall desist from making any order; interim or otherwise, which has the effect of postponement of the election. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 14, which reads thus:-
"14. We have carefully considered the above referred judgments relied upon by the learned advocates. We are of the view that none of the aforesaid judgments supports the contentions raised by Mr.Raval and Mr.Vyas. It is the consistent view of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the bar imposed by Article ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 39 243-ZG is absolute and that the resolution of any dispute pertaining to an election which has the effect of interrupting, .
obstructing or protracting the election shall be postponed until after the completion of the election. The Court shall desist from making any order; interim or otherwise, which has the effect of postponement of the election. The process of election, as defined in Clause 7A of Section 2 of the Act of 1963, shall be of deemed to have commenced from the date the order of delimitation of wards is made by the Election Commission of the State. Hence, once the order of delimitation of wards is made no court shall entertain any dispute concerning the delimitation of rt wards or any other matter concerning the election. The resolution of such disputes shall be postponed until after the election is complete."
30. Learned five Judges Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Prithvi Raj Vs. State Election Commission, AIR 2007 PH 178, while dealing with the bar of interference by the Court in elections to the Municipality, held that the elections can be called in to question by way of election petition before the authority or tribunal provided by the statute enacted by the State legislature, but this did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, but its power of judicial review was merely postponed to a stage after the election tribunal had adjudicated upon the election petition. It also overruled the earlier view of Full Bench in Lal Chand Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 P&H 1, wherein it had been held that Article 243-ZG (b) could be read down and held ultra virus to the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution, it was held that the challenge to an election under Article 226 would be postponed to a time and stage after the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 40 conclusion of the "election" and that too by an election petition, the .
High Court would in exercise of judicial restraint, postpone judicial review to a stage after the Election Tribunal adjudicates the election petition. Meaning thereby, that the Court unequivocally held that the High Court could not entertain a writ petition calling in of question elections once the elections have been notified.
31. rt In Association of Residents of Mhow (Rom) Vs. Delimitation Commission of India (2009) 5 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of interference by the Courts in matters of delimitation and in view of clause A of Article 243-O held that the order under the Delimitation Act, 2002 is law made under Article 327 of the Constitution and cannot be called in question in any Court by virtue of Article 329 and therefore, the High Court rightly relied on this short ground, when it summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued in pursuance of Section 10 (1) of the Act. It was held that:-
"28. The Commission's power to determine delimitation of the constituency is not unlimited but is structured by the provisions of the Act and more particularly by Sections 8 and 9 of the Act apart from the Constitution (Eighty-fourth Amendment) Act, 2001 and Constitution (Eighty-seventh Amendment) Act, 2003 which have, inter alia, amended Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution of India. The effect of these amendments to the Constitution inter alia is that each Parliamentary Constituency in each State shall be an integral multiple of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 41 number of seats comprised therein and no Assembly Constituency shall extend to more than one Parliamentary .
Constituency.
29. The Commission in the present case appears to have determined the delimitation of both Dhar and Indore Parliamentary Constituencies in such a manner whereby each of the Parliamentary Constituency shall consist of equal number of of 8 Assembly Constituencies. It appears the Commission had also taken into consideration the contiguity, geographical features, public convenience etc. before finally determining the delimitation of both the Parliamentary Constituencies. We find no rt illegality to have been committed by the Commission.
30. In the present case, the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued in pursuance of sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act in respect of the delimitation of Indore Parliamentary Constituency. The petition was rejected on the short ground that the order of the Commission once published under Section 10(2) of the Act is law made under Article 327 of the Constitution and cannot be called in question in any court by virtue of Article 329 of the Constitution.
31. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that only such decision of the Commission determining delimitation of Constituencies after following the mandatory procedure under Section 9 (2) of the Act, if it is published, becomes a force of law and it cannot be questioned in any court. Thus, the protection under Section 10 (2) of the Act as well as Article 329(a) is available only when the mandatory requirements of Section 9(2) are complied with by the Commission. In support of the submission reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in State of U.P. Vs. Pradhan Singh Khesttra Samiti [1995 suppl. (2) SCC 305.
32. The decision in Pradhan (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellants in no manner supports the contention urged before us. On the other hand, this Court found the approach of the High Court to be objectionable for it had gone into the question of validity ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 42 of the delimitation of the constituencies and also allotments of seats to such constituencies although clause (a) of Article 243-O .
of the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters.
33. In Padhan Sangh case, this court dealt with the provisions of Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O and the provisions of Panchayat Raj Act,1947 and Section 9 of the Delimitation Act, of 1950. It was observed:
"45. What is more objectionable in the approach of the High Court is that although clause (a) of Article 243-O of rt the Constitution enacts a bar on the interference by the courts in electoral matters including the questioning of the validity of any law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made or purported to be made under Article 243-K and the election to any panchayat, the High Court has gone into the question of the validity of the delimitation of the constituencies and also the allotment of seats to them. We may, in this connection, refer to a decision of this Court in Meghraj Kothari v. Delimitation Commission3. In that case, a notification of the Delimitation Commission whereby a city which had been a general constituency was notified as reserved for the Scheduled Castes. This was challenged on the ground that the petitioner had a right to be a candidate for Parliament from the said constituency which had been taken away. This Court held that the impugned notification was a law relating to the delimitation of the constituencies or the allotment of seats to such constituencies made under Article 327 of the Constitution, and that an examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Commission Act showed that the matters therein dealt with were not subject to the scrutiny of any court of law. There was a very good reason for such a provision because if the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the result would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 43 constituencies from court to court. Although an order under Section 8 or Section 9 of the Delimitation .
Commission Act and published under Section 10(1) of that Act is not part of an Act of Parliament, its effect is the same. Section 10(4) of that Act puts such an order in the same position as a law made by Parliament itself which could only be made by it under Article 327. If we read of Articles 243-C, 243-K and 243-O in place of Article 327 and Sections 2(kk), 11-F and 12- BB of the Act in place of Sections 8 and 9 of the Delimitation Act, 1950, it will be rt obvious that neither the delimitation of the panchayat area nor of the constituencies in the said areas and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given. Even this challenge could not have been entertained after the notification for holding the elections was issued. The High Court not only entertained the challenge but has also gone into the merits of the alleged grievances although the challenge was made after the notification for the election was issued on 31- 8-1994."
34. It is true the observations made in this judgment "that neither the delimitation of the Panchayat area nor the constituencies in the said area and the allotments of seats to the constituencies could have been challenged nor the court could have entertained such challenge except on the ground that before the delimitation, no objections were invited and no hearing was given" (SCC p.332, para 45) may lend some support to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that there could be a challenge in case where final determination of delimitation of constituencies was made without inviting any objections whatsoever. But that is not the ratio of the judgment.
35. This court in Pardhan (supra) was not considering any similar issue as the one that had arisen for our consideration in the present case. This Court did not take any view that the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 44 proposals in respect of each constituency shall have to be treated as an independent proposal and the Commission's .
power to determine delimitation of the constituencies is with reference to each constituency. The objections and/or suggestions, as the case may be, are required to be taken into consideration treating the proposals as for whole of the State and delimitation of the constituencies with reference to a State of as a Unit.
36. In Meghraj Kothari Vs. Delimitation Commission & Ors. (1967) 1 SCR 400, a Constitution Bench of this court while interpreting Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Delimitation Commission rt Act, 1962 which are in pari materia with the provisions of the present Act, observed: (AIR p. 675 paras 19-20) "19. In our view, therefore, the objection to the delimitation of constituencies could only be entertained by the Commission before the date specified. Once the orders made by the Commission under Sections 8 and 9 were published in the Gazette of India and in the official gazettes of the States concerned, these matters could no longer be reagitated in a court of law. There seems to be very good reason behind such a provision. If the orders made under Sections 8 and 9 were not to be treated as final, the effect would be that any voter, if he so wished, could hold up an election indefinitely by questioning the delimitation of the constituencies from court to court. Section 10 (2) of the Act clearly demonstrates the intention of the Legislature that the orders under Sections 8 and 9 published under Section 10 (1) were to be treated as law which was not to be questioned in any court.
20. It is true that an order under Section 8 or 9 published under Section 10 (1) is not part of an Act of Parliament, but its effect is to be the same."
37. The Constitution Bench went to the extent of saying that:
(Meghraj Kothari case, AIR pp 674 & 677, paras 18 & 32) "18. An examination of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act shows that the matters therein dealt with were not to be subject to the scrutiny of any court of law.....::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:28 :::HCHP 45
32.......the provision of Section 10(4) puts orders under Sections 8 and 9 as published under Section 10 (1) in the .
same street as a law made by Parliament itself which.......could only be done under Article 327, and consequently the objection that the notification was not to be treated as law cannot be given effect to".
of Conclusion
38. In the present case, the Commission finally determined the delimitation of Parliamentary Constituencies in the State of Madhya rt Pradesh after considering all objections and suggestions received by it before the specified date and got published its orders in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of the State as is required under Section 10 (1) of the Act. The orders so published puts them "in the same street as a law made by Parliament itself". Consequently that Notification is to be treated as law and required to be given effect to."
32. A learned Division Bench of this Court in Angdui Norbu & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others AIR 2012 HP 36, held that a petition can be said to be an election petition under Section 162 of the Panchayati Raj Act only if the same is filed on any one of the grounds as prescribed under Section 175 (1) of the Act. However, in case no ground as prescribed is available to the petitioner under Section 175 (1) to maintain an election petition under Section 162 of the Act, then the plea that there is an alternative remedy by way of election petition and the bar under Article 243 O of the Constitution would not be attracted. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 and 18 of the judgment, which read thus:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP 46"15. Section 163(1), provides that "Any elector of a Panchayat may, on furnishing the prescribed security in the prescribed .
manner, present within 30 days of the publication of the result, on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 175, to the authorised officer an election petition in writing against the election of any person under this Act." Thus, an election petition would lie only on the ground specified under of Section 175(1). Section 175(1) provides for grounds for declaring the elections to be void, which read as follows:
"175.Grounds for declaring elections to be rt void.-(1) If the authorised officer is of the opinion-
(a) that on the date of his election the elected person was not qualified, or was disqualified to be elected under this Act; or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by the elected person or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the elected person or his agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected, or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns the elected person, has been materially affected-
(i) by the improper acceptance nomination, or
(ii) by the improper reception, or rejection of any vote reception of any vote which is void, or
(iii) by any non-compliance of provisions of this act or of any rule made under this Act, the authorised officer shall declare the election of the persons to be void."
18. Since an election petition in the prescribed manner is not maintainable, as stated above, the constitutional bar also is not attracted in this case. The contention that invalidation of an election is contemplated only in an election petition is also without any basis. Section 127(2), provides for a statutory invalidation of the election in the event of an elected member not entering office within the prescribed period. Section 127(2) has provided that the election of a member who has not entered office within the prescribed period shall be deemed to be invalid. A consequence also is provided in the Act that a fresh election ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP 47 should take place. Thus, the statute has not only provided a deemed invalidity but has also provided for the consequence .
thereof. Having provided a deeming provision also providing for the consequence for the deemed event, is not required under law that a particular authority should again declare or endorse what has taken place by the deemed event and the consequence thereof. The legislature has consciously intended of to avoid such redundant provision action and a cumbersome procedure, with a view to effectively activate democratic institutions without wasting time. To hold otherwise would be doing violence to the scheme of the Act and would be a dis- rt service to a democratic set up. Therefore, in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, only this Court can look into such issues and Election Tribunal is incompetent to deal with such matters. Thus, the Petition is perfectly maintainable, nay, the Petition is the only remedy."
33. The proposition which can now be culled out from the above noted judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts including this Court is that:-
(1) The word "election" appearing in Article 243-O and the provisions contained in the 1994 Act and the rules framed thereunder bears larger connotation. It embraces and includes all steps commencing from the date of notification by the Competent Authority, whereby the electorates are called upon to elect Pradhans and Up-Pradhans and ending with declaration of result. Reservation of offices of Pradhan and Wards in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and Women, preparation, printing and publication of electoral rolls (provisional and final), filing of nomination papers, scrutiny of nomination papers and withdrawal thereof, publication of the list of eligible candidates, allotment of symbols, appointment of election agents, the conduct of poll, counting of votes, declaration of results and all other ancillary steps taken for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP 48 the purpose of holding elections fall within the ambit of the term "election". {N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, .
Namakkal Constituency, Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar (supra)} (2) (i) The bar contained in Article 243-O, which begins of with non-obstante clause, debars all Courts from entertaining any challenge to law relating to rt delimitation of constituencies or allotment of seat made or purporting to be made under Article 243-K or election to the Panchayats. This bar also operates against the High Court's power of judicial review under Article 226. (N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, Election Commission of India v. Shivaji and Election Commission of India v.
Ashok Kumar (supra)}
(ii) The proposition contained in Clause (i) above is subject to the condition that challenge to the delimitation may be entertained in exceptional cases where no objections were invited and no hearing was given provided that such challenge is made before issue of notification for holding election. {State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti (supra)}
(iii) The bar contained in Article 243-O (a) would operate immediately after publication of notification of delimitation of Panchayat areas even in cases where the same is challenged prior to issuance of notification of election.
(iv) The bar contained in Article 243-O(b) operates only till the adjudication of election dispute by an adjudicatory forum created by or under any law made by the Legislature of the State. An order made by an adjudicatory forum constituted under the law made by ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP 49 the State Legislature can be called in question by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
.
(3) The bar contained in Article 243-O operates at all stages of the election i.e. notification issued by the State Election Commission calling upon the electorate to elect Pradhans and Up-Pradhans; reservation of offices of Pradhans in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward of Classes and Women; preparation, printing and publication of electoral rolls (provisional and final), filing of nomination papers, scrutiny and withdrawal thereof; allotment of rt symbols; appointment of election agents; counting of votes and declaration of result.
(4) The bar contained in Article 243-O(b) does not operate qua challenge to the constitutionality of a statutory provision relating to elections, though, even in such a case, the High Court will be extremely loath to pass an interlocutory order which has the effect of stalling or jeopardizing the process of election or which may result in the constitutional hiatus on account of indirect violation of Article 243-K(3) read with Article 243-K(1).
(5) Where the petitioner raises grounds which is not barred under the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution and is not covered in any one of the grounds as prescribed under Section 175(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, then the bar of alternate remedy by way of election petition under Section 162 of the Act and further bar under Article 243-O of the Constitution would not be attracted. Even in such cases, the Court will not normally pass interlocutory orders, which has effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the election.
34. Having laid down the above said principles, the individual claims as raised in these petitions would now have to be considered and determined in light of these principles, therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP 50 list all these petitions for admission/hearing on 23rd December, .
2015.
In order to facilitate the arguments, the Registry is directed to upload copy of this order forthwith on its official website.
of (Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
December 15, 2015
rt (Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
Judge.
(KRS)
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:30:29 :::HCHP