# Lalji Shukla and another v. Election Commission of India and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 1 ILRA 175
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-01-13
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalji-shukla-and-another-v-election-commission-of-india-and-others-39770
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 324(c) -
Direction of Election Commission of
India dated 28.12.2001 - Transfer of
those Class I Police Officers who are
working for last 4 years continuously in
the same District-but not be posted in
their
home
district-whether
such
direction is contrary to provisions of
Article 324 (1) of the Constitution. HeldNo.

Held - Para 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.

## Text

1All] Lalji Shukla and another V. Election Commission of India and others
175
Judges
to
take
the
matter
in
all
seriousness and promptitude realizing the
gravity of the situation and fill up the
vacancies at the earliest.

7. Let the Registrar General of this
Court send a copy of this order to all the
concerned
constitutional
authorities
forthwith.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD JANUARY 16, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2157 of 2002

Lalji Shukla

...Petitioner
Versus
Election Commission of India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Ravi Kiran Jain
Sri Rishi Chandra

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C.
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri S.K. Mendiratta
Sri S.N. Srivastava

Constitution of India, Article 324(c) -
Direction of Election Commission of
India dated 28.12.2001 - Transfer of
those Class I Police Officers who are
working for last 4 years continuously in
the same District-but not be posted in
their
home
district-whether
such
direction is contrary to provisions of
Article 324 (1) of the Constitution. HeldNo.

Held - Para 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.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard Shri U.N. Sharma, learned
counsel for the petitioners, Shri S.K.
Mendiratta 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. Naini, 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
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
176
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 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, and 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 roll 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,
leaned
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 it 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
1All] Deepak Kumar V. Collector, Gautam Buddha Nagar and others
177
can see is whether the directive is
absolutely
whimsical,
arbitrary
or
malafide. No allegation of malafide has
been made in this petition against the
Election Commission.

9. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of
India, reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 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 a
judicial 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 malafide.
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 specialized 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
Vs. Chief Election Commission 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.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: JANUARY 11,2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE G.P. MATHUR, J.
THE HON'BLE R.P. MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38161 of 2001

Deepak Kumar

...Petitioner
Versus
Collector,
Gautam
Budh
Nagar
and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri S.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Sidhartha
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226
readwith Land Acquisition Act Section
18-Compensation - Scope of Mandamus
- Seeking direction to the Assistant
Collector to give compensation - in view
of provision of Section 18, unless the