Murlidhar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 5 October, 1999
39. The issue of passing the order of closure by the Election Commission was considered by the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Dasappa and Brothers, Bangalore v. Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1992 Kant 230 and the Court observed that even if no reasons are contained in the message of the Election Commissioner directing the State Government for imposing the ban on sale and storaage of liquor during the election for nine days, it would not be proper for the Court to interfere with and invalidate such direction for the reason that Article 324 of the Constitution imposes the responsibility on the Election Commission to conduct free and fair election. Therefore, the Election Commission has been clothed with such powers impliedly and it has the power to issue directions as it would amount to incidental and ancillary power of the Commission. The Court further observed as under :-(at P. 236 of AIR)
"Vitiation of a direction of the Election Commission Issued for conduct of a free and fair election as a precautionary measure for being carried out by the concerned Government on the ground of its non-application of mind or on the grounds of the direction not containing the reasons or being arbitrary, can never arise when there is apparent nexus between the direction and the purpose sought to be achieved by such direction. ........