JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. The dispute in this writ petition relates to the election for the post of Grain Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Habibpur Nagla, Vikas Khand Pilana, District Baghpat. The notification for such election was issued by the District Magistrate/Zila Nirvachan Adhikari, Baghpat, according to which nominations were to be filed between 5th and 7th August, 2005; scrutiny of the nomination papers was to be done from 7th to 9th August; withdrawal of nomination was to be made on 10th and 11th August; and on 11th August, 2005 symbols were to be allotted to the contesting candidates. The election was thereafter to be held on 23rd August 2005 and the counting of votes was to be done on 28th August 2005. The said election was for 'unreserved female' seat. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 5 and 6 had filed their nomination papers. On scrutiny of the nomination papers, on 9.8.2005, the nomination papers of respondents No. 5 and 6 were rejected on the ground that both of them were in arrears of taxes of Zila Panchayat. A complaint regarding the same was made by the respondents No. 5 and 6 on 10.8.2005, which was supported by a "No Dues Certificate" issued by the Zila Panchayat. The District Magistrate/Zila Nirvachan Adhikari, Baghpat, respondent No. 3, instituted an enquiry, which was conducted by the Additional District Magistrate. After receiving the report of the Taxing Officer of the Zila Panchayat, the enquiry officer confirmed that the respondents No. 5 and 6 were in arrears of taxes of Zila Panchayat. The enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 11.8.2005. Such being the situation after enquiry, since the nomination papers of respondents No. 5 and 6 had already been rejected on 9.8.2005 and the date for withdrawal had also expired on 11.8.2005, leaving the petitioner as the lone candidate in the fray for election, the Nirvachan Adhikari, in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhan and Up-pradhan) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules') declared the petitioner as elected and as required under the Rules, reported the same to the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate thereafter informed the result of the election for the post of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Pilana to the State Election Commission, respondent No. 2.
2. Exercising powers under Section 12BB of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') the State Election Commission, vide its order dated 15.8.2005, cancelled the election of Pradhan for the Gram Panchayat in question. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Election Commission, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Since there was an apprehension that election would be again held by the State Election Commission for the said post of Pradhan, a further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents not. to take steps for holding fresh elections. As an interim order had been granted at the initial stage, no fresh elections have yet been held.
3. I have heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1, 3 and 4; Sri K.P. Singh for the State Election Commission-respondent No. 2 and Sri G.N.Verma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Dr. Madhu Tandon appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 6, and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at: the admission stage itself.
4. Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that prior to the passing of the order dated 15.8.2005, no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner by the State Election Commission, and that the impugned order is an ex-parte order, based on an ex-parte enquiry. It has further been submitted that the clerk of the Zila Panchayat, Baghpat, who had issued the 'No Dues Certificate' in favour of the petitioner subsequently, which formed basis of the passing of the impugned order, was given a notice by the Zila Panchayat and had also been placed under suspension on the ground of having issued a forged 'No Dues Certificate'. The contention is that the enquiry, which was got conducted subsequent to the rejection of the nomination papers, was not an enquiry within the scope of the Rules of 1994. The enquiry officer was not connected with the election for the post of Pradhan and as such the State Election Commission could not have relied on such enquiry report. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thus, is that once the election results have been declared under the Rules of 1994, the State Election Commission becomes functus officio and was not empowered to cancel the election proceedings, as has been done by the impugned order dated 15.8.2005. It has been urged that after the declaration of the result of the election, the only alternative open to the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 was to file an election petition, as the State Election Commission had lost the jurisdiction and competence to cancel the election process. In support of this submission, Sri Srivastava has placed reliance on two Division Bench decisions of this Court rendered in the cases of Shambhu Singh v. State Election Commissioner 2000 (91) Revenue Decisions 619; and Smt. Ram Kanti v. District Magistrate, Hamirpur (1995) 2 UPLBEC 771.
5. Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6 has, however, submitted that process of election does not come to an end till the declaration of result is confirmed by the State Election Commission. In this respect he has relied on the provisions of Rules 71 and 72 of the Rules of 1994 and Section 12-BB and 12-BC of the Act. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh v. Sub Divisional Officer Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer .
6. Sri C.P. Misra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 has submitted that the declaration of result is only a stage of the election process and till the Gram Panchayat is constituted and notified under Section 58 of the Act, the election process goes on. He has also submitted that result of the election of the petitioner was not declared in compliance with the provisions of Rule 71 and 72 of the Rules and hence such declaration was void.
7. Sri K.P. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State Election Commission reiterated the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel and submitted that since no certificate was issued by the Returning Officer, it could not be said that any result had been declared in the eye of law. He also urged that the election process had not come to an end and the State Election Commission was well within its powers to cancel the election result of the petitioner as well as entire election process, as has been done by the impugned order dated 15.8.2005.
8. In the backdrop of the facts as narrated above and the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the question to be determined by this Court would be that at which stage the election process comes to an end and could the State Election Commission, on a complaint having been made by the candidate whose nomination paper had been rejected by the Returning Officer, cancel the entire election process after the result had been notified to the Commission by the District Magistrate.
9. For this purpose let me first notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 12-BB and 12-BC of the Act read as under:
12-BB. Superintendence etc. of the election.-
(1) The superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of the election to the office of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat shall be vested in the State Election Commission.
(2) Subject to the superintendence, direction and control of the State Election Commission the Mukhya Nirvachan Adhikari (Panchayat) shall supervise and perform all functions relating to the conduct of the election of the office of Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or a member of a Gram Panchayat in the State.
(3) The State Government shall, in consultations with the State election Commissions, by notification, appoint the date or dates for general election or bye-elections of the Pradhan, Up-Pradhan or members of a Gram Panchayat.
x x x x x x x x 12-BC. Other provisions relating to holding the elections.-
(1) Subject to the supervision and control of the State election. Commission, the District Magistrate shall supervise the conduct of all elections of the Pradhans, the Up-Pmdhans and the members of Gram Panchayats in the district.
(2) Every local authority and the management of every educational institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government in the district shall when so required by the District Magistrate, make available to him or to any staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with such election.
(3) The State election Commission may likewise require all or any of the local authorities and the managements of all or any of such institutions as aforesaid in the State to make available to any officer referred to in Sub-section (2) such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with such election, and they shall comply with every such requisition.
(4) When any employee of any local authority or institution referred to in Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (3) is appointed to perform any duty in connection with such elections he shall be bound to perform such duty.
10. The relevant Rules 2(d), 53, 55, 58, 71 and 72 of the Rules, which have been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties, are also quoted below:
2. Definitions.- In this chapter unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or of contest -
(d) "election" means an election to fill a seat in a Gram Panchayat.
x x x x
53. Declaration of result.- The Nirvachan Adhikari shall declare the candidates securing the highest number of votes in their respective constituencies to be duly elected.
x x x x
55. Report of result.- As soon as may be after the result of an election has been declared, the Nirvachan Adhikari shall report the result to the District Magistrate and shall also inform the Secretary of the ram Panchayat. The District Magistrate shall report the result to the State Election Commission.
x x x x
58. Constitution of Gram Panchayat.-
(1) As soon as at least two-thirds of the seats of embers of Gram Panchayat and the office of the Pradhan have been filled up, the District Magistrate shall notify that the Gram Panchayat has been duly constituted.
(2) The notification under Sub-rule (1) shall contain the names of the members and of the Pradhan, It shall be published by affixing a copy thereof at the office of the Assistant Development Officer (Panchayat). A copy shall also be sent to the Secretary of the Gran Panchayat concerned.
xxxxxx
71. List of contesting candidates and allotment of symbols.-
(1) Immediately after the expiry of the date for withdrawal of candidature the Nirvachan Adhikari shall prepare a list of contesting candidates in the specified form.
(2) The Nirvachan Adhikari. shall, simultaneously with the preparation of the list of contesting candidates, allot subject to any general or special direction issued in this behalf by the State Election Commission, a different symbol to each contesting candidate.
(3) The allotment by the Nirvachan Adhikari of any symbol to a candidate shall be final except where it is inconsistent with any directions issued by the State Election Commission in this behalf in which case the State Election Commission may revise the allotment in such manner as he thinks fit.
(4) Every candidate or his Nirvachan Adhikarta shall forthwith be informed of symbol allotted to the candidate and be supplied with a specimen thereof by the Nirvachan Adhikari.
(5) The list of contesting candidates shall contain the names in alphabetical order of the contesting candidates as given in their nomination papers. The alphabetical order shall be determined with reference to the names proper of candidates.
x x x x x x x
72. Declaration of results in certain cases.-
(1) Where on preparing the list under Rule 71 the Nirvachan Adhikari finds that there is only one contesting candidate he shall forthwith declare him to be duly elected, and shall report to the District Magistrate the name of the candidate declared elected.
(2) If all candidates have withdrawn, the Niruachan Adhikari shall report the fact to the District Magistrate.
11. There is no doubt about the fact that the District Magistrate and the State Election Commission have the power of superintendence and control over the election in question. Rule 53 provides that the candidate securing the highest number of votes be declared elected by the Nirvachan Adhikari. The list of the contesting candidates has to be prepared by the Nirvachan Adhikari immediately after expiry of the date for withdrawal of candidature. In case if all the candidates withdraw, the Nirvachan Adhikari is to report the fact to the District Magistrate. A combined reading of Rules 71 and 72 would make it clear that immediately after the expiry of the date for withdrawal of candidature, on preparing the list of remaining candidates, if the Nirvachan Adhikari finds that there is only one contesting candidate, he shall forthwith declare him to be duly elected. The submission of the respondents is that results had not been validly declared under the provisions of Rule 72, as the list of the contesting candidates had to be prepared after the date for withdrawal of candidature, which, as per the election schedule, was 11.8.2005. This contention does not have force. In the present case, since after the scrutiny of the nomination papers on 9.8.2005 it was found that out of the three candidates, two candidates (respondents No. 5 and 6) were disqualified and there was only one contesting candidate (petitioner) who remained in the fray, then the declaration of the only contesting candidate as duly elected, made by the Nirvachan Adhikari vide his order dated 11.8.2005 cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
12. Merely because after the result of an election has been declared, the Nirvachan Adhikari is required to report the result to the District Magistrate and also inform the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat and thereafter, the District Magistrate is to report the result to the State Election Commission, it cannot be said that the process of election was still on. According to the scheme of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the process of election comes to an end as soon as the result of the election is declared. The intimation to be given to the District Magistrate, Secretary of the Gram Panchayat or the State Election Commission is only a ministerial job, possibly for the purposes of computation and analyzing the result of the entire district (in the case of District Magistrate) and the entire State (in the case of State Election Commission). Unless the Act or Rules provide for the result of election to be declared only after getting a confirmation from the District Magistrate and/or State Election Commission, merely because intimation of the result is to be sent to such authorities, it cannot be construed to mean that the declaration of result is not complete until confirmed by the said authorities. The process of election is complete as soon as the Nirvachan Adhikari declares the result. In the present case, on 11.8.2005 the Nirvachan Adhikari had declared the result in proper Form 27, in which the petitioner was declared elected as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat in question.
13. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shambhu Singh (supra) has held that "It is no doubt true that the District Magistrate has supervisory power over the conduct of elections of Pradhan, Up-Pradhans and the members of Gram Panchayats in the district, but once the election result is declared and certificate issued, election process is complete and Section 12-C immediately comes into play." It was further held that "...the only duty given to the District Magistrate is that after he receives the report of the Nirvachan Adhikari of the declaration of the result, he shall also inform the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat, and shall report the result to the State Election Commission. It is clear that after the result is declared and it becomes final, the intimation and the report of the same is required to be given to the District Magistrate for the purpose of giving report of the result to the State Election Commission. There is no power conferred upon the District Magistrate directing the Returning Officer to declare the election result given when it has once been declared.... In our view the only remedy open to the Respondent No. 4 is to file an election petition in pursuance of Section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act." This Court further observed that "In our view, on proper interpretation of the Statute after the election process has come to an end, the State. Election Commissioner, District Magistrate and the Election Officer cease to have any jurisdiction and the only authority which can deal with and. decide any complaint regarding the election is the Election Tribunal."
14. Thus it is clear from the above discussion that after the result of the election is declared, the election process comes to an end and the State Election Commission, District Magistrate, or the Nirvachan Adhikari lose their jurisdiction in the matter. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh (supra) as has been relied upon by Sri G.N. Verma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 5 and 6, is distinguishable on facts, as in the present case it is not disputed that the result of the petitioner had been declared by the Nirvachan Adhikari on the requisite Form 27 of the Rules.
15. Much emphasis has been laid by Sri G.N. Verma on the words 'superintendence' and 'control' of the State Election Commission in the matter of election of Gram Pradhan, as mentioned in Section 12-BB and 12-BC of the Act. Such 'superintendence' and 'control' of the State Election Commission is also provided under the Rules. However, the same is only till the election process is on and not after it comes to an end. In the present case, after the result had been declared on 11.8.2005, the 'superintendence' and 'control' of the State Election Commission had also come to an end.
16. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the election process had come to an end after the result of the petitioner had been declared in requisite Form by Nirvachan Adhikari, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and the election process thus having been completed, the State Election Commission ceased to have any power or jurisdiction to cancel the entire election process, and the result, in which the petitioner had been declared elected as Gram Pradhan. As such the order dated 15.8.2005 issued by the State Election Commission is liable to be set aside.
17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 15.8.2005 passed by the State Election Commission is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to hold the office of the Gram Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat Habibpur Nagla, Vikas Khand Pilana, district Baghpat, which shall however be subject to the result of any Election Petition, if filed, under Section 12-C of the Act. No order as to cost.