Judgment:
1. Heard Shri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri S. K. Mendlratta and Shri S. N. Srivastava for the Election Commission and Shri Pradeep Kumar for the State Government.
2. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Election Commission of India dated 28-12-2001, Annexure-1 to the writ petition and the subsequent transfer order dated 13-1-2002, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
3. The petitioners are U.P. Government servants Petitioner No. 1 is the S.P. City and petitioner No.2 is Addl. S.P. (Yamuna Paar) Allahabad. Both the petitioners have been posted at Allahabad for more than four years. Petitioner No. 1 joined as Addl. S.P. City on 25-4-1998 and prior to that he was posted in 42 Bn. P.A.C. Nalni, Allahabad and he has admittedly completed more than four years in Allahabad District, similarly petitioner No.2 was posted as Addl. S.P. (Yamuna Paar) Allahabad on 25-4-1998 and prior to that he was posted as Addl. S.P. City Allahabad and thus admittedly he has also completed more than four years at Allahabad.
4. The petitioners are challenging the Impugned directives of the Election Commission of India dated 28-12-2001. Paragraph 3 of the said directive states that the Commission has directed those officers who have completed more than four years of stay in the same district should be moved out of the present district but should not be posted in their home district. In compliance with this directive of the Election Commission of India, the impugned transfer order has been passed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned directive of the Election Commission of India is arbitrary and beyond the powers vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution of India. We do not agree with this submission. Article 324(1) of the constitution states as under :--
'The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls, for the conduct of all elections of Parliament and in the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).'
6. A perusal of the said provision shows that the Election Commission is incharge of the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections of the Parliament and to the State Legislature, The words 'superintendence, direction and control' and the words 'conduct of elections' are very wide words and thus they give power to the Election Commission to do all that is necessary to ensure free and fair elections so that the will of the people can be expressed thereby. In our opinion the impugned directions of the Election Commission are well within the powers conferred to it by Article 324(1) of the Constitution of India.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned directive is arbitrary. We do not agree. We have been informed by Sri Mendiratta, learned counsel for the Election Commission that the reason for issuance of the above directive was that those officers who have completed four years in a particular district may have developed liaison with the politicians and other Influential persons of the district and hence ft would be conducive for ensuring fair elections that they should be moved out. Sri Mendiratta also stated that the same directive was issued in the election of 1998 and all elections thereafter, which were conducted by the Election Commission. The same directives have also been issued for all other States where elections are being currently held, namely, Uttaranchal. Manipur and Punjab.
8. We are of the opinion that the impugned directive of the Election Commission is valid as it does not discriminate between different officers but a uniform directive has been issued for all the officers who have completed four years of stay in the same district, to move out. This directive appears to be quite reasonable. In our opinion this Court does not sit in appeal over such orders of the Election Commission, and all that it can see is whether the directive is absolutely whimsical, arbitrary or mala fide. No allegation of mala fide has been made in this petition against the Election Commission.
9. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 it has been held by the Supreme Court that the scope of interference in administrative orders by the Court is very limited. In our opinion the impugned order is not ajudlcial or quasi judicial order but it is purely administrative in nature. Hence the scope of interference by the Court in such case is limited, and it can only see whether the order is arbitrary or mala fide. We are of the opinion that it does not suffer from any such defect. Merely because this Court could have taken a different view that is not a good reason for interfering with such administrative order. This Court is not testing the wisdom of the Election Commission. The Election Commission is a specialised body which is politically neutral and has experience in conducting elections and ordinarily it is for the Commission to decide what would be conducive for a fair election. Moreover, this Court does not ordinarily interfere with policy matters, unless the policy is clearly illegal.
10. Sri U.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of Supreme Court in M.S. Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner in AIR 1978 SC 851 and has submitted that the respondent cannot supplement the reasons given in the impugned order. In our opinion this decision is distinguishable because the impugned order does not give reasons at all. Hence there is no question of supplementing the reasons given in the impugned order. There are various kinds of administrative orders which often give no reasons e.g. transfer or suspension orders, and it cannot be said that these orders are illegal merely because no reason has been given in them or because the respondents filed a counter affidavit giving reasons for the transfer or suspension, etc.
11. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed.
12. Let a copy of this order be given, if possible today, to the parties on payment of usual charges.