RAVINDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main grievance of the petitioner appears to be is that although his nomination was accepted for the general scat and he contested the election and thereafter, votes were counted, but before declaration of the result the election was countermanded by the State Election Commissioner.

(2.) SRI R. C. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of State Election Commission submitted that the seat for which the nomination of the petitioner was accepted was a reserved seat and the petitioner could have not filed his nomination for that seat, as he belonged to forward caste and for that reason the election was countermanded.

(3.) A bare perusal of both the Articles would indicate that the language and tenor of both the Articles are identical. The Election Commissioner under the scheme of the Constitution is vested with vast power in all the matters pertaining to conduct of the election. His decision cannot be assailed, if he has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution or any law framed by the Legislature. If he transgress his authority against the law, enacted by Legislature or act in colourable exercise of power the Court may interfere. In no other case his decision can be called in question. In Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner and others, 1978s. C. page 851, while dealing with the power of the Chief Election Commissioner Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Election Commission is competent in any appropriate case to order re-poll of the entire constituency where necessary. It will be an exercise of power within the ambit of function, under Article 324 of the Constitution of India.