ORDER
K. Narayana Kurup, J.
1. These two original petitions are being heard and disposed of by a common order at the admission stage itself. O.P. No. 6344/93 is treated as the main petition and the fate of the other petition (O.P. 6460/93) will depend upon the outcome of the main petition, namely, O.P. 6344/93.
O.P. No. 6344/93 The battle at the hustings has now become a battle at the bar.
The petitioner is a voter in the electoral rolls of the 8-Ottapalam (S.C.) Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Kerala. He is aggrieved by Ext.P 1 Notification No. 100/ KL--HP/1/92, dt. 8-5-1993 issued by the first respondent Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) amending its earlier Notification No. 100/ KL--HP/1/92(l) dated 19-4-1993. Under the earlier notification as aforesaid, which has been amended by Ext.PI, the poll to 8-Ottapalam (S. C.) Parliamentary Constituency was scheduled to be held on 19-5-1993, which, by virtue of the impugned Ext.P 1 notification, stands postponed to 19th August, 1993.
2. As already noted, the election to 8-Ottapalam (S. C.) Parliamentary Constituency was originally proposed to be held on 19-5-1993 as per Notification No. 100/KL-HP/1/92(1), dt. 19-4-1993 issued by the Commission under S. 149 of the Representation of the People Act. Thereafter, the third respondent Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Kerala vide his letter No. 22779/SSA3/93/ Home dt. 17th April, 1993 addressed to the Commission stated that the holding of bye-election in Ottapalam Parliamentary Constituency pursuant to the notification dt. 19th April, 1993 is likely to trigger off communal clashes in the constituency and other parts of the State and requested that the bye-election may be held only after the communal situation returns to normalcy. The Commission vide its letter No. 100/KL-HP/ 1/92/93B dated 20-4-1993 intimated the third respondent that the Commission carefully considered the request made by the third respondent and found no justification to postpone the bye-election and the request was accordingly rejected. The third respondent Chief Secretary as per his letter No. 22779 ' SSA3/93/Home/5593 dated 5-5-1993 again brought to the notice of the Commission the report on law and order incidents from the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) according to which, in the aftermath of the Ayodhya issue, a number of communal incidents have taken place in the Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency and nearby places and according to the said report, frequent clashes between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh / Bharatiya Janatha Party and Communist Party of India (Marxist) have also taken place in the constituency and during the past four months alone eight serious cases either of political or communal nature have taken place including two under Section 307, I.P.C. and the Hindu Muslim divide has widened after the communal rioting and would have wide ramifications in Ottapalam, Pattambi, Thrithala and Wadakkanchery areas which have a sizeable Muslim population. In view of the assessment made by the Director General of Police (Intelligence) the third respondent State of Kerala requested the Commission that the election to 8-Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency which was scheduled to be held on 19-5-1993 be postponed. On a consideration of the request of the third respondent and also considering the D.O. Letter No. 1802/SS(CS)/93 dt. 7th May, 1993 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India intimating the Commission that the third respondent is of opinion that the conditions obtaining in Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency may not be conducive for holding a peaceful, free and fair poll and that the information available through other sources with the Ministry of Home Affairs also confirms these perception and the Govt. of India therefore reiterated the State Government's perception that it will be in the public interest to postpone the bye-election to 8-Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency and also after considering certain complaints about various aspects of elections including violations of the Model Code in the constituency and after having satisfied that after the formal notification of elections to 8-Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency, there has been a deterioration in the law and order situation with consequent implications on the possibility of conducting a peaceful, free and fair poll reflecting the true choice of the people's representative, the Commission was of opinion that there is no alternative but to postpone the poll in 8-Ottapalam (SC) Parliamentary Constituency in Kerala scheduled to be held on 19-5-1993 to 19-8-1993. The challenge in this original petition is against Ext.P 1 notification postponing the poll from 19-5-1993 to 19-8-1993.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M.K. Damodaran contended inter alia that the Commission has no jurisdiction to issue Ext. PI notification postponing the date of poll of the entire constituency when there are specific provisions under the Representation of the People Act to postpone the polling date by the Returning Officer -- in this connection he brought to my notice Section 57 of the Representation of the People Act which empowers the Returning Officer to adjourn the poll at a polling station under certain situations, -- that the impugned notification has been issued with mala fides and in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. He has a further contention that the grounds mentioned in Ext.P 1 for postponing the election from 19-5-1993 to 19-8-1993 is a pretext and such grounds do not exist in reality. Learned counsel Shri C. N. Radha-krishnan appearing for the Commission contended inter alia that the instani writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has got an efficacious alternative remedy by way of election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act and further, by virtue of the bar created by Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India the instant petition is not maintainable. The learned Addl. Advocate General Shri V.K. Beeran appearing for the State of Kerala and Shri George C.P. Tharakan appearing for the Union of India have reiterated the aforesaid contentions and submitted that the original petition may be dismissed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Commission, State of Kerala and Union of India, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition.
5. In this connection, the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Constitution of India which have a bearing on the issue have to be noted. Section 2(d) of the Act defines 'Election' as an deletion to fill a seat or seats in either House of Parliament or either House in the Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Section 14 of the Act provides for issuance of a notification for general election to the House of the People by the President. Section 30 of the Act provides for appointment of dates for nominations and other allied matters. Section 57 of the Act provides for adjournment of poll at any polling station in emergencies. Section 149 provides for filling up of casual vacancies in the House of the People. Section 153 of the Act empowers the Commission for reasons which it considers sufficient to extend the time for the completion of any election by making necessary amendments in the notification issued by it under Section 30 or Sub-section (1) of Section 39. Under Article 324 of the Constitution of India the superintendence, direction and control of elections is expressly vested with the Commission and Article 329(b) of the Constitution excludes the jurisdiction of courts to entertain any matter relating to 'election' which can be questioned only by an election petition under the law prescribed by the appropriate Legislature.
6. The question to be considered is whether Ext.P 1 notification issued by the Commission postponing the election from 19-5-1993 to 19-8-1993 can be assailed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the express bar created by Article 329(b) thereof which excludes the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain any matter relating to 'election' which can be questioned only by an election petition. The answer to this question will depend upon the construction/interpretation to be placed upon the word 'election' occurring in Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India. In its wider sense the word 'election' in Article 329(b) of the Constitution connotes the entire process of election commencing from the issuance of the notification by the President under Section 14 of the Act culminating in a candidate being declared elected. This aspect is no longer res integra, as can be seen from the authoritative pronouncement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851, wherein it has been held that 'election covers the entire process from the issuance of the notification under Section 14 of the Representation of the People Act to the declaration of the result under Section 66 of the Act.' Applying the above ratio to the facts of the present case, there can be no doubt that the postponement of election as per Ext.P 1 cannot but be characterised as an act in aid of the election and as such an integral part of the election process. Once it is found that the dispute in question is one relating to election, then the next question arises whether this court can, having regard to the facts and circumstances stated, entertain the writ petition in the midst of the election process. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the various aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that the answer to the above question is to be in the negative. The reasons are not far to seek. Article 329(b) of the Constitution is an express bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as it has the tendency to exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters connected with election. As already noticed, calling in question postponement of' election' is calling in question the 'election' itself within the meaning of Article 329(b) of the Constitution as the word 'election' has been used in Article 329(b) of the Constitution in a wide sense, that is to say, the entire process commencing from the issuance of notification under Section 14 to culmination by the declaration of result of the successful candidate. May be, it can be argued that the Commission was wrong in postponing the election. But even in such cases remedy of the aggrieved party is to file an election petition as provided by law and not to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Adverting to this aspect, the Supreme Court in Gill's case (vide AIR 1978 SC 851) held as follows :
'When the Election Commission amended its notification and extended the time for completion of the election by ordering a fresh poll, it is an order during the course of the process of' election'. Even if it is a wrong order it does not cease to be an order passed by a competent authority charged with the conduct of elections with the aim and object of completing the elections. Although that is not always decisive, where the impugned order has been passed in the exereisc of power under Article 324(1) of the Constitution and Section 153 of the Representation of the People Act, such an order relating, as it does, to election cannot be questioned except by an election petition under the Act. If during the process of election, at an intermediate or final stage, the entire poll has been wrongly cancelled and a fresh poll has been wrongly ordered, that is a matter which may be agitated after declaration of the result on the basis of the fresh poll, by questioning the election in the appropriate forum by means of an election petition in accordance with law. The petitioner, then, will have a remedy to question every step in the electoral process and every order that has been passed in the process of the election including the countermanding of the earlier poll.
To catch all jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot consider the correctness, legality or otherwise of the direction for cancellation integrated with re-poll. For, the prima facie purpose of such a re-poll is to restore a detailed poll process and to complete it through the salvationary effort of a re-poll. A writ petition challenging the cancellation coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a step in 'election' and is therefore barred by Article 329(b).'
(Paras 31, 32, 91, 121, 122)
7. That apart, the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution is very wide and all pervasive including the power to do all acts in regard to the superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament and the Legislature of every State. The constitutional mandate to the Commission is to conduct free and fair elections and being so, under the scheme of the Constitution, there can be no direction much less a writ of mandamus to the Commission to either commence, continue or stop an election process.
8. Viewed in the above perspective, the instant writ petition is misconceived and the same is only liable to be dismissed as not maintainable and I do so.
9. Before concluding, I may observe that where a constitutional authority omits or refuses to discharge its constitutional or legal obligations, or where such authority arrogates to itself any jurisdiction not vested in it by law or where the conduct of such constitutional authority is vitiated by clear mala fides or oblique motives, the jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ousted in spite of the non obstante clause in Article 329 of the Constitution.
10. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. Since O.P. No. 6344/93 is dismissed, O.P. No. 6460/93 is also dismissed in limine.