Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“5. It is therefore not permissible, in the present case, to interpret Section 150 of the Act in isolation without reference to Part III of the Act which prescribes the machinery for calling in question the election of a returned candidate. When an election petition has been referred to a Tribunal by the Election Commission and the former is seized of the matter, the petition has to be disposed of according to law. The Tribunal has to adjudge at the conclusion of the proceeding whether the returned candidate has or has not committed any corrupt practice at the election and secondly, it has to decide whether the second respondent should or should not be declared to have been duly elected. A returned candidate cannot get rid of an election petition filed against him by resigning his seat in the Legislature, whatever the reason for his resignation may  be. In the present case, the election petition filed by Respondent 2 has prayed for a composite relief namely, that the election of the appellant should be declared to be void and that Respondent 2 should be declared to be duly elected. In a case of this description the Election Commission is not bound immediately to call upon the Assembly constituency to elect a person for the purpose of filling the vacancy caused by the resignation of the appellant. It is open to the Election Commission to await the result of the election petition and thereafter decide whether a bye-election should be held or not. If the election petition is ultimately dismissed or if the election is set aside but no further relief is given, a bye- election would follow. If, however, Respondent 2 who filed the election petition or any other candidate is declared elected the provisions of Section 150 of the Act cannot operate at all because there is no vacancy to be filled. In the present case, therefore, we hold that the Election Commission is not bound under Section 150 of the Act to hold a bye-election forthwith but may suspend taking action under that section till the result of the election petition filed by Respondent 2 is known.”

30. This Court held in the above case that it is open to the Election Commission to await the result of the election petition and thereafter decide whether a byelection should be held or not. This Court held that Election Commission is not bound under Section 150 to hold a byelection.

31. Another judgment, which has been relied by the appellant is judgment of this Court in Election Commission of India Vs. Telnagana Rastra Samiti and Another (supra). In the above case, writ petition was filed by the respondent challenging the decision of the Commission not to hold byelection to two constituencies in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Twelve members of the Assembly had resigned. Commission issued a press note notifying the holding of byelections for ten vacancies but two vacancies were not notified since election petitions were pending in which election petitioners had sought to be declared as elected. Writ petition seeking a direction to hold election was filed. The High Court in the writ petition issued direction to the Commission to hold election. The Election Commission of India being aggrieved by that judgment had come up in this Court. Reliance was placed on Section 151A, which was inserted in the Act by amendment. The judgment of D. Sanjeevayya case was referred to and relied. This Court laid down following in paragraph No.46:-