1993 (4) TMI 337 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the order of the Chief Election Commissioner.
2. Interpretation of Article 329 of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of Sections 58A and 58A of the Representation of the People Act.
4. Principles of natural justice in passing orders.
5. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. Reference to a third judge in case of a difference of opinion.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash the Chief Election Commissioner's order countermanding an election. The Division Bench heard the case, where the Attorney General raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 329 of the Constitution. Mahinder Narain, J., held the writ petition maintainable, while P. N. Jog, J., dismissed it, stating that the election dispute should be raised through an election petition under Section 100 of the Act. This led to a difference of opinion between the judges, resulting in a reference to a third judge.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Article 329 of the Constitution:
The maintainability of the writ petition hinged on Article 329 of the Constitution, which restricts challenging elections except through election petitions. The judges differed on whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, leading to a reference to a third judge for resolution.

Issue 3: Validity of Sections 58A and 58A of the Representation of the People Act:
Mahinder Narain, J., held that Sections 58A and 58A of the Representation of the People Act were ultra vires the Constitution. This finding influenced the decision on the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the Chief Election Commissioner's orders.

Issue 4: Principles of Natural Justice in Passing Orders:
The judgment highlighted concerns regarding the order passed by the Chief Election Commissioner, emphasizing the importance of following principles of natural justice in decision-making processes. The lack of a returning officer's report and consideration of material circumstances were raised as issues affecting the validity of the order.

Issue 5: Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226:
The judgment delved into the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to entertain matters related to election disputes. The differing opinions of the judges underscored the complexity of determining the court's jurisdiction in such cases.

Issue 6: Reference to a Third Judge in Case of a Difference of Opinion:
The disagreement between the judges necessitated a reference to a third judge to resolve the maintainability of the writ petition. The third judge, in this case, highlighted the procedural requirements for such references under the Letters Patent and emphasized the need for clarity in stating the specific points of difference for resolution.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed significant issues related to the maintainability of a writ petition challenging election-related orders, the interpretation of constitutional provisions, and the procedural aspects of referring matters to a third judge in case of a difference of opinion. The decision underscored the importance of adherence to legal principles and procedural requirements in resolving complex legal disputes.