ORDER
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Sri Palamanda Prabhakar and others filed W.P. No. 16344/2006 praying for a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for records issued in Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006, dated 29.7.2006 by 1st respondent and to quash the same and to pass such other suitable orders. Respondents 7 to 12 were impleaded as per the order made by this Court dated 25.9.2006 in W.P.M.P. No. 24747/2006. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Likewise, counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 4 to 6. A reply affidavit also was filed.
2. W.P. No. 17404/2006 is filed by A. Ambika praying for a writ of mandamus calling for records issued in Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B.2/2006 dated 3.8.2006 by the 1st respondent and to set aside the same as without jurisdiction and against to the principles of natural justice and to pass such other suitable orders. The 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit just on similar lines taking virtually the same stand which had been taken in the former writ petition.
3. In view of the fact that the tactual matrix involved in both the writ petitions and the questions of law being common, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order.
4. Submissions of Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana: Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in W.P. No. 16344/2006 had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit tiled in support of the writ petition and also the contents of the order impugned in this writ petition and would submit that in the light of Article 243K of the Constitution of India such power cannot be exercised by the State Election Commission at this stage and hence the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel also had referred to Article 243(O243K of the Constitution of India and Sections 201 and 233 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Act' for the purpose of convenience). While elaborating his sections, the Counsel also had referred to the old Rule 12 and the corresponding Rule, the present Rule 16, and further had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 62. The Counsel would submit that inasmuch as the election process was complete by declaration of results, the issuance of certificate being only a ministerial job, by that it cannot be said that the election process is not completed. The Counsel would submit that in the facts and circumstances the State Election Commission is not empowered to initiate such action as specified in the impugned proceeding. The Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.
5. Submissions of Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar : Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, the learned Counsel representing the petitioners in W.P. No. 17404/2006, substantially while adopting the arguments advanced by Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, had further explained what is the meaning of 'election' and when it can be said that the election process commences and when the same comes to an end. The learned Counsel would submit that when once the results are declared the State Election Commission would become functus officio. The Counsel also placed strong reliance on Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and Ors. : [1978]2SCR272 , Ram Phal Kunda v. Kamal Sharma : AIR2004SC1657 and G. Sunitha v. Election Commissioner of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Ors. : 2006(5)ALD515 . The learned Counsel also would maintain that if the stand taken by the concerned District Collector and the stand taken by the State Election Commission to be accepted, then, it will amount to these authorities collecting some evidence by way of expert opinion and it would also amount to reopening of the issue already decided. The learned Counsel also had explained the peculiar facts involved in the matter and would submit that at any stretch of imagination, on the strength of such insufficient material, preventing democratically elected Sarpanch from functioning as Sarpanch, would be totally unjustified.
6. Submissions of Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao : Sri V.V. Prabhakar Rao, the learned Counsel representing the State Election Commission had taken this Court through Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 201 of the Act. The learned Counsel also would contend that the State Election Commission in fact had not taken any final decision and in fact as can be seen from the impugned order, the election as such was not declared void but only it was suspended and hence in stead of waiting for a final decision, approaching this Court at this stage would be definitely premature. The learned Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 62 and Rule 63 and would contend that inasmuch as no election certificate as such is given, the election process is not complete. In the case of large scale forgery like the one which had been complained of in the present case, though the same is not provided by either under the Act or the Rules, by virtue of exercise of plenary powers, the State Election Commission is entitled to take appropriate decision and hence in the light of the reasons which are self-explanatory in the impugned proceeding, the same cannot be found fault. The learned Counsel also would submit that in the light of the plenary powers which had been specified in the decision A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and Ors. : [1984]3SCR74 , this action impugned in these writ petitions, is within the power and purview of the State Election Commission as such and hence the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.
7. Submissions of Sri Ravinder : Sri Ravinder, the learned Counsel representing the unofficial respondents in W.P. No. 16344/2006 would maintain that it is a case of fraud and fraud would vitiate everything. The Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the date of withdrawal and the immediate action which had been initiated in relation thereto. The learned Counsel also pointed out to Rule 64 of the Rules and had drawn the attention of this Court to Election Commission of India v. Union of India 1995 (3) Supp. SCC 643.
8. Heard the Counsel and perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the impugned proceedings.
9. The writ petitioners in W.P. No. 16344/2006 had averred that the 1st respondent had issued election notification on 9.7.2006 notifying the election schedule to various Gram Panchayats in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In conformity with the said notification, the 2nd respondent, who is the Election Officer, issued notification on 14.7.2006 in Chittoor District. As per the said notification the date of filing nomination was from 15.7.2006 to 19.7.2006, the dates of scrutiny of the said nominations were 20.7.2006 to 21.7.2006, the date of withdrawal of nominations was on 23.7.2006, the date for withdrawal of nominations was 23.7.2006 and the date of election was on 6.8.2006. Pursuant to the said notification, myself and the petitioners 2 to 9 along with others including respondents 3 to 6 filed nominations before the respective Returning Officers of the Gram Panchayats. Thereafter scrutiny of nominations took place and a list in Form 5(1) was published. On 23.7.2006 i.e., the date of withdrawal of nominations, the respondents 3 to 6 and others, who had filed nominations in the above mentioned respective Gram Panchayats withdrew their nominations. As there were no other contesting candidates and as there was only one valid nomination in our respective Gram Panchayats, the Returning Officers on 23.7.2006 declared the petitioners as elected for the offices of Sarpanch and also issued Form X to that effect. It is also stated that while so, the respondents 3 to 6 who also filed their nominations for the offices of Sarpanch in Cherukuvaripalle Village, Reddivaripalle Village, Bandarlapalle Village and Vootuvaripalle Village respectively and who later withdrew their nominations appeared to have back tracked and lodged a complaint on 24.7.2006 with the 2nd respondent alleging that they did not withdraw their nominations on 23.7.2006 and that the said withdrawal forms were forged. These respondents had also gone to the press and gave statements to the above effect and their one sided version was published without even verifying the veracity or otherwise of the said statements. Apart from the respondents 3 to 6, two other persons from Khambamvaripalle appeared to have joined them to lodge the complaint. In fact, in Khambamvaripalle Gram Panchayat, there is unanimous declaration and the elections had been held as per the schedule. The 2nd respondent, purporting to act on the said complaint and the press statements appeared to have made enquiry behind the back of the writ petitioners and prima facie opined that the signatures in the nominations forms, the declaration forms and the sample signatures obtained do not match with that of the signatures contained in the withdrawal forms of respondents 3 to 6 and others. It is curious to note that the complaints were made by the candidates from four villages but the 2nd respondent evidently basing on a press report arrived at his prima facie opinion that in respect of ten Gram Panchayats the withdrawal forms were allegedly forged and accordingly communicated his opinion to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent relying on the so called opinion of the 2nd respondent and purporting to exercise his powers under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 201 of the Act suspended the declarations of the writ petitioners as elected Sarpanchas and directed the 2nd respondent not to allow the writ petitioners to assume office. In the said proceedings, the 1st respondent also directed for sending the withdrawal forms to the forensic experts for obtaining the report on the genuineness of the signatures on the withdrawal forms. As the issuance of the said Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006 dated 29.7.2006, is ipso facto illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice, the present writ petition had been filed. It is further stated that in Para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that Article 243K of the Constitution of India and the Section 201 of the Act empower the 2nd respondent to supervise, direct and control the process of elections to Panchayats. It is further stated that A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules 1994 (hereinafter in short referred to as 'Rules') provide for the manner in which the elections are to be held for the local bodies. In fact, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and under Sections 200 and 201 of the Act, the Election Commission had framed code of conduct for Political Parties and contesting candidates. The said case does not govern a situation after the declaration of the result. No other rules are made to deal with the post declaration situation, obviously conscious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission ceases after declaration of the election. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, the term 'election' includes all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of elections till the date of declaration of result. Thus the role of the Election Commission concludes with the declaration of the result. If there arise any grievances relating to declaration of result or the manner in which elections were conducted, the appropriate forum for redressal of such grievances is the Election Tribunal by way of election petition as provided in Section 233 of the Act read with A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995. Thus the powers of the Election Commission or its officers ceases the moment the candidate is declared to be elected and the only remedy available in law for any person aggrieved by such declaration is filing of the election petition before the jurisdictional Election Tribunal. It is also further stated that after the declaration of the result of the writ petitioners for the posts of Sarpanches, the 2nd respondent's action in conducting enquiry on the authenticity of the signatures on the withdrawal forms and forming an opinion that the said signatures are allegedly forged and the 1st respondent further relying on the said opinion of the 2nd respondent and issuing the impugned proceedings without putting the petitioners on notice is manifestly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings are ultra vires the Constitution and the provisions of the Act and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Neither the 1st and 2nd respondents are competent nor empowered to decide the so called grievance sought to be ventilated by the respondents 3 to 6. In fact, as per Rule 10 of the Rules, any candidate intending to withdraw his candidature shall sign in Form 6 and shall personally deliver it to the Election Officer. As evident from the impugned proceedings, except for the candidates who filed their nominations for the villages Thimmanayunipalle and Sodam, all other candidates had appeared in person before the Returning Officer for withdrawing their nominations. Even the said two candidates had appeared through their proposer and authorised agent respectively and the said two candidates admittedly did not lodge any complaint with the 2nd respondent. The hastiness of the respondents 1 and 2 is further evident from the fact that though the petitioners 7 and 8 are declared to be elected the impugned proceedings mentions wrong names. Moreover the impugned proceedings were not even served upon the petitioners and on coming to know the same through press the petitioners made an application dated 1.8.2006 under Right to Information Act 2005 and thereafter the petitioners were issued a copy of the impugned proceedings. Thus viewed from any angle, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is highly arbitrary, illegal and colourable exercise of power. It is also further submitted that respondents 3 to 6 in fact do not enjoy any reputation or popularity in their respective villages and who are very well aware that they cannot win the elections are resorting to these types of dilatory tactics to prevent the writ petitioners from assuming the office of Sarpanch.
10. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent it was averred in Para-4 that the 2nd respondent District Collector, Chittoor sent a report Roc. H2/7272/2006, dated 26.7.2006 in which it is stated that respondents 3 to 6 and Sri B. Reddy Prasad Reddy and Sri K. Hanumanthu had complained that their signatures were forged on the withdrawal forms. The report discloses that on the basis of alleged forged withdrawal forms, ten candidates specified in Column No. 2 of the table below are declared to have been unanimously elected as Sarpanchas of the Gram Panchayats specified in Column No. 3 thereof by the Returning Officer, Stage-I of the concerned Gram Panchayat shown in Column No. 4 thereof.
_________________________________________________________________________SI.No. Name of the candidate Name of the Gram Name of the ReturningPanchayat Officer_________________________________________________________________________(1) (2) (3) (4)_________________________________________________________________________1. Sri Palamanda Prabhakar Booragamanda Sri L. Uma Shankar,Assistant Engineer,Panchayat Raj, Sodam,State-I2 Smt. Sagabala Yelamma Nadigadda -do-3 Sri Thakkella Bhaskar Jogivaripalle -do-4 Smt. Jadagala Nirmala Gongivaripalle Sri RamanjaneyuluAgricultural Officer,Sodam5 Sri Kodakanti Ammagaripalle -do-Munivenkataramanachari6 Smt. Cheruku Lalithamma Thimmanayunipalle -do-7 Sri Challa Ramakrishna Reddy Vootupalle -do-8 Sri Velupu Naresh Reddyvaripalle -do-9 Sri Tummala Nagabhushanam Sodam Sri A. Veera NagiReddy Reddy, Lecturer inCivics, GovernmentJunior College, Sodam10 Sri Penubaka Ravi Kumar Chintalavaripalle Sri D. Narayana Reddy,Mandal Education Off-icer, Sodam_________________________________________________________________________
The 2nd respondent further stated that he obtained the specimen signatures of all the candidates in respect of the said 10 Gram Panchayats whose withdrawal forms are allegedly forged. Thereafter he compared the specimen signatures of the said candidates with the signatures appearing in their nomination forms and the declaration and they tallied. But the signature on the withdrawal forms did not tally with the specimen signatures, signature on the nomination form and the declaration and this is a prima facie proof that their signatures on the withdrawal forms had been forged. The 1st respondent examined the case with reference to Rule 14 of A.P.P.R. (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1994 relating to withdrawal of candidature and its ingredients are:
1. The candidate has to give notice in Form-VII in person to the Returning Officer; and
2. Where such notice is delivered by such candidate in person or it shall be delivered by his proposer of the Election Agent who has been authorised in this behalf in writing by such candidate.
In view of the provisions of Rule 14, the 1st respondent issued Letter No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006 dated 27.7.2006 and requested the 2nd respondent to clarify:
1. Whether the notice of the withdrawal is given in Form-VII;
2. Whether it is delivered by the candidate himself;
3. In the alternative whether it is delivered by his proposer or Election Agent;
4. Whether it is delivered by his proposer or Election Agent who has been authorised in this behalf in writing by the same candidate.
The 2nd respondent in his letter Roc. No. H2/7272/2006 dated 27.7.2006 stated that the concerned Returning Officer, Stage-I stated that in respect of 10 Gram Panchayats specified in the table, except items 6 and 9, the withdrawal forms were delivered personally, that in respect of item 6, it was delivered by the proposer who is not authorised for the purpose and that in respect of item 9, it was delivered by a duly authorised Election Agent. It is further stated in Para-6 of the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent that the 1st respondent took all the records into consideration and when examined thoroughly, two significant facts were noted, namely that (1) the ten contesting candidates who are alleging that their withdrawal forms had been forged categorically stated that they have not delivered them personally and (2) the documentary evidence revealed that while their specimen signature is tallying with their signature on the nomination form and the declaration, the signature on the withdrawal form is not tallying with the specimen signature or the signature on the nomination form and the declaration. Therefore both on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available the nonchalant statements of the Returning Officers, Stage-I, that the candidates in respect of the Gram Panchayats specified in the table except items 6 and 9 personally withdrew their candidature appeared prima facie unbelievable. In these circumstances, the 1st respondent issued Order No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006, dated 29.7.2006, the effect of which is only to suspend election of the Sarpanchas indicated in Column No. 2 of the above table who are unanimously declared to have been elected and to prevent them from taking oath of office. The Collector, Chittoor is requested to get the signatures of the candidates who are alleged to have withdrawn their candidature by forensic experts in the meantime. The orders issued by the 1st respondent are only interim in nature in order to investigate whether any fraud took place in the withdrawal of the candidatures. The assertion of the aggrieved candidates that their signatures were formed, the fact that their signatures on the withdrawal form are not tallying with their specimen signature and signatures on the nomination form and declaration, the fact that withdrawal took place on such a large scale gave scope for the 1st respondent that some large scale fraud took place in the whole episode and in order to see that the purity of elections is maintained, interference was called for and therefore orders were issued suspending the unanimous election of the ten Sarpanchas in question and to refer the signatures on the withdrawal form and other records to the forensic experts for a report and the report is awaited. It is further stated in Para-7 that in pursuance of orders dated 27.7.2006, the 2nd respondent addressed letter Roc. No. H2/7272/2006 dated 2.8.2006 to the Director, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad requesting him to examine the record and to communicate the opinion on the signature on the contesting candidates on withdrawal forms comparing with the standard/expected signatures of such a candidate and he sent all the records to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratories and his report is awaited. Specific stand is taken that the 1st respondent had not taken any final action and the sole intention is to investigate any large scale fraud had taken place forging the withdrawal forms of the aggrieved candidates and to obtain the expert opinion in the matter in order to find out the truth or otherwise of the allegations of forgery and all this is quite legitimate in the interest of maintaining purity in elections. Further specific stand is taken in Para-9 of the counter-affidavit that in respect of election disputes, the State Election Commission has no role to play. But large scale fraud in withdrawal of candidatures affecting the purity of elections and an election dispute have to be distinguished. Where large scale forgery of withdrawal form is brought to the notice of the State Election Commission by a responsible authority like the District Collector who is also the District Election Authority with supporting evidence, the State Election Commission cannot routinely reply that it is an election dispute and that it cannot interfere in the matter. The vast powers of superintendence, direction and control of the elections vested in the State Election Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution of India does not allow him to supinely look on when large scale fraud takes place. Therefore, maintenance of purity of elections by interfering in cases of large scale fraud supported by documentary evidence is distinct from an ordinary election dispute and interference in such cases of large scale fraud is within the plenary powers of the State Election Commission. Further specific stand is taken at Para-10 that if a single candidate alleges some irregularity in the election process that is an entirely different matter but where a large number of Sarpanchas in a Mandal come forward alleging large scale forgery and the District Election Authority after due verification finds that there is prima facie evidence for such allegations, the magnitude of the matter is of significance warranting interference of the State Election Commission under its plenary powers. If in such large scale cases of prima facie fraudulent withdrawal also the cases are relegated to the Election Tribunal in which the proceedings take years on end and thereafter appeals can be filed, it allows in the meantime the pretenders of the office of Sarpanch who gained that office by fraudulent means to continue themselves, defeating the very purpose of the elections. What the State Election Commission did is to find out through the medium of handwriting experts whether the signatures are forged or not and to disallow the pretenders to assume the office and function and hence there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional in the interference by the State Election Commission. The allegations to the contra are denied as considerable examination of the matter had been done. Thus specific stand is taken that in the light of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition itself is premature.
11. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 4 to 6, the Election Schedule had been narrated in Para-3 of the counter-affidavit. It is further stated that the decision taken by the 1st respondent is well within the jurisdiction under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and as per the provisions of the Act. It is also stated that they had not withdrawn their candidatures for the posts of Sarpanchas in the respective Village Panchayats and hence they made representations to the 2nd respondent stating their signatures were forged on the withdrawal forms and on the basis of the representations made to the 2nd respondent the 1st respondent after obtaining report from the 2nd respondent had taken a decision on 29.7.2006 by suspending the entire election process including restraining the petitioners from assuming office of Sarpanchas from the respective Panchayats. Further a specific stand is taken that by virtue of powers under Article 243K of the Constitution, the 1st respondent is having such powers. Further a specific stand is taken that the 1st respondent had not yet taken any final decision. The truth or otherwise relating to forgery is a pure question of fact and hence this cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. A reply affidavit is filed again reiterating the self same stand and explaining certain additional facts. Specific stand is taken that whether there was any fraud is committed or not is to be decided by Election Tribunal, the same being a disputed question of fact and the same may have to be elicited in the trial by examining the witnesses. The 1st respondent by making a roving enquiry cannot adjudicate on the said disputed questions of fact. Certain other details also had been narrated in the reply affidavit.
13. In W.P. No. 17404/2006, at the outset, it may be stated that the 1st respondent-State Election Commission had taken the same stand substantially as taken in the prior writ petition referred to supra. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by the writ petitioner that she is a voter of Keelagaram Village, Narayanavaram Mandal, Chittoor District and the office of Sarpanch is reserved for Backward Class (General). The 1st respondent had issued election notification on 9.7.2006 notifying the election schedule to various Gram Panchayats in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In conformity with the said notification, the 2nd respondent who is the Election Authority issued a notification on 14.7.2006 in Chittoor District. As per the said notification the date of filing nominations was from 15.7.2006 to 19.7.2006, the dates of scrutiny of the said nominations were 20.7.2006 and 21.7.2006, the date of withdrawal of nominations was 23.7.2006 and the date of election was 2.8.2006. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner and three others had filed nominations personally and the husband of the 4th respondent had filed her nomination. It further stated that an objection was raised on 20.7.2006 before the Returning Officer at 2.30 p.m. and the same was acknowledged stating that the nomination filed by the 4th respondent was not signed by her and it was signed by her husband. In spite of the same due to political pressures no action was taken. Thereafter scrutiny of nominations took place and a list in Form 5(1) was published. It is submitted that on 23.7.2006 the candidates i.e., Ramanamma, Chandran and Yahya Khan were resent and had withdrawn their nominations but on behalf of 4th respondent her husband Dharmalingam and proposer were present and had withdrawn the nomination on his own otherwise any coercion. But subsequently after two days a complaint was given to the 2nd respondent alleging that this nomination was withdrawn by forging the signature. It is stated that it is a false complaint and no credence was given. Therefore out of five nominations four nominations were withdrawn. As there were no other candidates and as there was only one candidate, the Returning Officer declared that the petitioner is elected for the office of Sarpanch of Keelagaram Village and Form-29 was issued on 2.8.2006 declaring the petitioner as Sarpanch and she had taken oath on the same day. Thereafter a notice was issued in Form-I for the election of Vice-President requesting all the Ward Members to be present on 3.8.2006 at 10 a.m. Accordingly the Ward Members had attended the meeting and one V.S. Devarajan was elected as Vice-President and therefore the entire election process was completed. It is further stated that the 4th respondent's theory of forgery is only concocted one and it is belated. The signature on the declaration form and withdrawal form are one and the same and the signature of the candidate will not be tallied since she had not signed in the, declaration form. It is further stated that once the Sarpanch is declared by the Returning Officer as per the Rules, either the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent have no power to suspend or to set aside the election. The forum that is available is Election Tribunal to the aggrieved party and therefore the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and further the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity before passing the impugned order. It is further stated that the 1st respondent relying on the so-called opinion of the 2nd respondent and purporting to exercise his powers under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 201 of the Act suspended from functioning as Sarpanch and also directed the 2nd respondent not to allow the petitioners to assume office. In the said proceedings the 1st respondent also directed for sending the withdrawal forms to the forensic experts for obtaining the report on the genuineness of the signatures on the withdrawal forms to the forensic experts. As the issuance of the said Proceedings No. 1792/SEC-B2/2006-2 dated 3.8.2006 is ipso facto illegal, without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice the present writ petition was filed. It is also stated that Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Section 21 of the Act empower the 2nd respondent to supervise, direct and control the process of elections to the A.P. Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules 1994 provide for the manner in which the elections are to be held for the local bodies. In fact, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 243K of the Constitution of India and Sections 200 and 201 of the Act, the Election Commission had framed Code of Conduct for Political Parties and the contesting candidates. The said case does not govern a situation after the declaration of the result. No other rules are made to deal with the post declaration situation, obviously conscious of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Election Commission ceases after the declaration of election. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, the term 'election' includes all steps and entire proceedings commencing from the date of notification of elections till the date of declaration of result. Thus the role of the Election Commission concludes with the declaration of result. If there arise any grievance relating to declaration of result or the manner in which the elections were conducted, the appropriate forum for redressal of such grievances is the Election Tribunal by way of Election Petition as provided in Section 233 of the Act read with A.P. Panchayat Raj (Election Tribunals in respect of Gram Panchayats, Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads) Rules, 1995. Thus the powers of Election Commission or its officers ceases the moment the candidate is declared to be elected and the only remedy available in law for any person aggrieved by such declaration is filing of the Election Petition before the Jurisdictional Election Tribunal. It is also further stated that in the present case after declaration of the result for the post of Sarpanch, the 2nd respondent's action in conducting an enquiry on the authenticity of the signatures on the withdrawal form and forming an opinion that the said signatures are allegedly forged and the 1st respondent further relying on the said opinion of the 2nd respondent and issuing the impugned proceedings without putting any notice to the petitioner is prima facie illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The impugned proceedings are ultra vires the Constitution and the provisions of the Act and as such the same is liable to be quashed. Neither the 1st and the 2nd respondents are competent nor empowered to decide the so-called grievance sought to be ventilated by the 4th respondent. In fact, as per Rule 10 of the Rules, any candidate intending to withdraw his candidature shall sign in Form-6 and shall personally deliver it to the Election Officer. It is the mischief that was done by the 4th respondent's husband who signed and filed the nomination and withdrawn the same. If the petitioner is not continued in the office she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and she cannot be deprived of the assuming of the office for no mistake committed by her.
14. The impugned order in W.P. No. 16344/2006, dated 29.7.2006 reads as hereunder: