# D. SANJEEVAYYA v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1967] 2 S.C.R. 489
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-01-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal'No. I of 1967
- **Bench:** K. N. Wanchoo, V: Ramaswami
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-sanjeevayya-v-election-tribunal-andhra-pradesh-ors-3997
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

.
R•~resentation of the l'eop/e ~ct (43 of 195.1), s. 150-Election petillOn with a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner was duly electedResignation by returned candidate-If Election Commission bound to hold
bye-d/ectkm forthwith.
The second respondent filed an election petition for the declarations :
(I) that the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly
was void, and (2) that be himself was duly elected. While the petition
was pending, the appellant was appointed as a Minister in the Central
Cabinet and was elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha. He, thereupon
resigned bis oeat in the State Legislative Assembly and filed a writ petition
in the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Election
Commission of India on the ground that it was incumbent upon the Election Commission under s. 150 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, to take steps forthwith to bold a bywlection for filling up the
vacancy so caused.
The petition was dismissed.
IB appeal to this Cour•.,
HELD : No case was made out by the appellant for the issue of ·a writ
of mandamus to the Election Commission as the Election Commission is
not bound under s. 150 to take steps to hold a bye-election immediately
after a vacancy arises. When the second respondent's election petition was
referred to the Tribunal It bad to decide whether be should be declared
to have been duly elected and, the appellant could not get rid of the petition by resigning his seat for whatever reason. In a case of this description it is open to the Election Commission to await the result ·of the election petition, for, if ·the second respondent eventually got a declaration
that he himself had been duly elected, there .would be two candidates representing the same constituency at the same time, one declared by the
Tribunal to be duly elected at the General Election and the other declared
to have been duly elected at the bye-election. Further, it is also conceivable
that there may be situations in which the Election Commission may not
bold a bye-election at all or may bold it after a delay of 2 or 3 months
after the vacancy arises. [493 B, F-H; 494 A-B, E; 495 F]

## Text

A
B
c
D
F
G
D. SANJEEVAYYA
v.
ELECTION TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
January 27, 1967
[K. N. WANCHOO AND V: RAMASWAMI, JJ,j
.
R•~resentation of the l'eop/e ~ct (43 of 195.1), s. 150-Election petillOn with a prayer for a declaration that the petitioner was duly electedResignation by returned candidate-If Election Commission bound to hold
bye-d/ectkm forthwith.
The second respondent filed an election petition for the declarations :
(I) that the election of the appellant to the State Legislative Assembly
was void, and (2) that be himself was duly elected. While the petition
was pending, the appellant was appointed as a Minister in the Central
Cabinet and was elected as a member of the Rajya Sabha. He, thereupon
resigned bis oeat in the State Legislative Assembly and filed a writ petition
in the High Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Election
Commission of India on the ground that it was incumbent upon the Election Commission under s. 150 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, to take steps forthwith to bold a bywlection for filling up the
vacancy so caused.
The petition was dismissed.
IB appeal to this Cour•.,
HELD : No case was made out by the appellant for the issue of ·a writ
of mandamus to the Election Commission as the Election Commission is
not bound under s. 150 to take steps to hold a bye-election immediately
after a vacancy arises. When the second respondent's election petition was
referred to the Tribunal It bad to decide whether be should be declared
to have been duly elected and, the appellant could not get rid of the petition by resigning his seat for whatever reason. In a case of this description it is open to the Election Commission to await the result ·of the election petition, for, if ·the second respondent eventually got a declaration
that he himself had been duly elected, there .would be two candidates representing the same constituency at the same time, one declared by the
Tribunal to be duly elected at the General Election and the other declared
to have been duly elected at the bye-election. Further, it is also conceivable
that there may be situations in which the Election Commission may not
bold a bye-election at all or may bold it after a delay of 2 or 3 months
after the vacancy arises. [493 B, F-H; 494 A-B, E; 495 F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal'No. I of 1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
September 19, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ
Petition No. 1253of1965.
B. Sen, T. Lakshmaiah, M. M. Kshatriya, K. Venkatramaiah,
and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellant.
H
M. K. Ramamurthi,
Shyamala Pappu and Vi11eet Kumar,
for respondent No. 2.
R. H. Dhebar and S. S. Javali, for respondent No. 3.
_)
490
Sl!PllEME COUllT llEPOllTS
( 1967] 2 S.C.ll.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by spocial leave, from
the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
dated
September 19, 1966 in Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1965.
At the last General Election to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative
Assembly
held
in
February
1962, the
appellant
and
the
2nd
respondent-P.
Rajaratna
Rao--were
the
contesting
candidates
for
election
from the Kodumuru constituency in Kurnool District. The result of the election was announced on February 25,
1962 and
the appellant
was declared to have been elected by a majority of about 7 ,OCYJ
votes. The second respondent thereafter filed an election petition
(Election Petition No. 180 of 1962) under s. 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951), hereinafter called
the 'Act' calling in question the election of the appellant on the
ground that various corrupt practices had been committed at the
election and claiming a two-fold relief namely, that the election
of the appellant should be declared to be void and that respondent
No. 2 himself should be declared to have been duly elected. After
the appellant had filed a written statement, the Election Tribunal,
Hyderabad framed twenty-two issues, but the trial of the election
petition could not be proceeded with as the appellant filed se~eral
inter-locutory applications raising various objections and after they
were over-ruled by the Election Tribunal, the appellant filed severalwrit petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. During the pendency of the election petition the appellant was appointed by the
President C1f India as Minister for Labour & Employment in the
Central Cabinet. Subsequent to that appointment the appellant
was elected as a Member of the Rajya Sabha on March 26, 1964.
Thereupon the appellant resigned his seat in the Legislative Assembly
on April S, 1964 and intimated the same to the Speaker of the
Assembly. On September 2, 1965 the appellant filed the present
Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1253 of 1965) before the Andhra
Pradesh High Court praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Election Commission of India to act under s. 150
of the Act and call upon the Kodumuru constituency to elect a
person for the purpose of filling up the vacancy caused by the resignation of the appellant. The appellant also prayed for a writ
'directing the Election Commission to withdraw election petition
No. 180 of 1962 from the file of the Election Tribunal, Hyderabad
and to stay all further proceedings in the trial of that election
petition pending the disposal of the writ petition'.
1 n the course
of argument before the High Court the appellant did not press the
second prayer for 'directing the Election Commission to withdraw
the election petition from the file of the Eiection Tribunal, Hyderabad'.
With regard to the first prayer, the High Court held that no case
A
B
c
D
E
,
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SANJEEVAYYA V. ELECTION TRIBUNAL (Ramaswami, 1.)
491
was made out for the issue of a writ of ma11damus to the Election
Commission and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
On behalf of the appellant the argument was put forward
that as soon as the appellant resigned his seat in the Legislative
Assembly under Art. 190(3)(b) of the Constitution of India there
was a duty cast on the Election Commission to take steps to hold
a bye-election for filling the vacancy so caused under s. 150 of the
Act. It was contended that it was incumbent upon the Election
Commission to discharge this duty immediately without waiting
for the result of the election petition filed by respondent No. 2 on
April 11, 1962.
Article 190(3) of the Constitution states :
"190(3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of
a State-
(a) becomes subject to any of .the disqualifications
mentioned in clause (I) of article 191; '?r
(b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed
to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may
be,
his seat shall thereupon become vacant."
Article 324 (1) of the Constitution provides:
"The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct
of, all elections to Parliament and t0 the Legislature of
every State and of elections to the offices of President
and Vice-President held under this Constitution, including
the appointment of election tribunals for the decision of
doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with
elections to Parliament and to the Legislatures of States
shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this
Constitution as the Election Commission)."
Section 150(1) of the Act states as follows :
"150. (!) When the seat of a member elected to the
Legislative Assembly of a State becomes vacant or is declared vacant or his election to the Legislative Assembly
is declared void, the Election Commission shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-section (2), by a notification in the
Official Gazette, call upon the Assem:ily constituency concerned to elect a person for the purpose of filling the vacancy
so caused before such date as may be specified in the notification, and the provisions of this Act and of the rules and
492
SUPREME COUllT REPOllTS
[1967] 2 S.C.R.
orders made thereunder shall apply, as far as may be, in
A
relation to the election of a member to fill such vacancy."
Sections 84 of the Act provides :
"A petitioner may,
in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of all or any of the returned
candidates is void, claim a further declaration that he himB
self or any other candidate has been duly elected."
Section 98 reads as follows :
"At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition
the Tribunal shall make an order-
(a) dismissing the election petition; or
(b) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void; or
(c) declaring the election of all or any of the returned candidates to be void and the petitioner or any other
candidate to have been duly elected;"
It was argued for the appellant that s. I 50 of the Act contemplates
three contingencies on the happening of any one of which th~
Election Commission may call for a bye-election.
The first contingency namely, the seat of a member becoming vacant arises,
when a member r~signs his scat ; the second contingency namely,
the seat of a member being declared vacant, is brought about
when a member absents himself from meetings of the House of
the Legislature for a period of sixty days w;thout the permission
of the House; while the third contingency arises when the election
of a member :o the Legislative Assembly is declared void by an
Election Tribunal under s. 98 (b) of the Act at the conclusion of the
trial of an election petition.
It was argued for the appellant
that the three
contingencies contemplated by the section are
mutually exclusive anJ upon the happening of any one of t!1em
an obligation is cast upon the Election Commission to take steps
to hold a bye-election forthwith.
In
the present case,
it was
pointed out that the first contingency has arisen namely. the seat
of a member became vacant upon his resignation and it was manifestly the d'uty of the Election Commission to take steps forthwith
to hold a bye-election to fill the vacancy irrespective of the fact
that an election petition was pending in which foe second re;-
pondent had asked for a declaration that the election of the appellant was void and also for the relief that he :1imself should be
declared to he duly elected.
We arc unable to accept the argument of the appellant as correct.
In our opinion, the provisions of s. 150 of the Act must
be interpreted in the context of ss. 84 and 98(c) and other relevant
c
D
I!
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SANJEEVAYYA v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL (Ramaswami, J.)
493"
provisions of Part III of the same Act. If the interpretation contended for by the appellant is accepted as correct the vacancy
must be filled by a bye-election as soon as a member resigns his
seat notwithstanding the pendency of an election j)etitiou challenging his election. If the candidate who filed the election petition
eventually gets a declaration that the election of the member is void
and that he himself had been duly elected there will be two candidates representing the same constituency at the same time, one
of them declared to be duly elected at the General Election and the
other declared to have been elected at the bye-election and an
impossible
situation would arise. It cannot be supposed that
Parliament contemplated such a situation while enacting s. 150
of the Act. Parliament could not have intended that the provisions of Part VI of the Act pertaining t0 election petitions, should
stand abrogated as soon as a member resigns his seat in the Legislature. It is a well-settled rule of construction that the provisions
of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another
and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those
of another unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between
them. The principle stated in Crawford's Statutory Construction
at page 260 is as follows :
"Hence the court should, when it seeks the legislative
intent, construe all of the constituents parts of the
statute together, and seek to ascertain the legislative
intention from
the
whole act,
considering
every
provision thereof in the light of the general purpose and
object of the act itself, and endeavouring to make every
part effective, harmonious, and sensible. This means, of
course, that the court should attewpt to avoid absurd consequences in any part of the statute and refuse to regard
any word, phrase, clause or sentence superfluous, unless
such a result is clearly unavoidable."
It is therefore not permissible, in the present case,' to interpret
s. 150 of the Act in isolation without reference to Part III of the
Act which prescribes the machinery for calling in question the election of a returned candidate. When an election petition has been
referred to a Tribunal by the Election Commission and the former
is seized of the matter, the petition has to be disposed of according
to law. The Tribunal has to adjudge at the conclusion of the pro
ceeding whether the returned candid::·~ has or has not committed any
corrupt practice at the election and secondly. it has to decide
whether the second respondent should or should not be declared to
have been duly elected. A returned candidate cannot get rid of an
election petition filed against him by resigning his seat in the Legislature, whatever the reason for his resignation may be.
In the
present case, the election petition filed by respondent No. 2 has
prayed for a composite relief namely, that the election of the
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl 967] 2 S.C.R.
appellant should be declared to be void and that res11ondent No. 2
should be declared to be duly elected.
In 'a case of this description the Election Commission is not bound immediately to call
upon the Assembly constituency to elect a person for the purpose
of filling the vacancy caused by the resignation of the appellant.
It is open to the Election Commission to await the result of the
election petition and thereafter decide whether a bye-election should
be held or not. If the election petition is ultimately dismissed or
if the election is set aside but no further relief is given, a bye-election would follow.
If, however, respondent No. 2 who filed the
election petition or any other candidate is declared elected the
provisions of s. ISO of the Act cannot operate at all because there
is no vacancy to be filled. In the present case, therefore, we hold
that the Election Commission is not bound under s. ISO of the
Act to hold a bye-election forthwith but may suspend !akin&
action under that section till the result of the election petition filed
by respondent No. 2 is known.
This view is also supported by the circumstance that no time-
.limit is fited in the section for the Election Commission to call
upon the Assembly constituency concerned to elect a person for
filling the vacancy. Nor docs the section say that the Election
·Commission shall hold a bye-election "forthwith" or "immediately".
Jt is also conceivable that there may be a situation in which the
Election Commission may not hold a bye-election at all or may
hold the bye-election after a delay of 2 or 3 months. Take for
instance, a case where a member resigns his seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State 3 months before a General Election
is due to be held. It cannot be suggested that the Election Comrnission is bound under s. 150( I) of the Act to hold a bye-eiection
forthwith ir that vacancy. Take also another instance where a
member of an Assembly of Himachal Pradesh resigns his seat
during winter. It cannot be argued that the Election Commission
is bound to issue a notification for a bye-election forthwith though
the climatic conditions are unsuitable for holding such a byeelec· ion.
The view that we have expressed as to the scope and effect
·Of s. 150 of the Act is borne out by the following passage from
May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th Edn., pp. 176-177:
"Where a vacancy has occurred prior to, or immediately
after, the first meeting of a new Parliament,
the writ
will not be issued until the time for presenting election petitions has expired. Nor will a writ be issued, if the seat
which has been vacated be claimed on behalf of another
candidate.
In December, 1852, several Members, against whose
return election petitions were pending, accepted office under
A
B
c
D
E
r
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
SANJEEVAYYA v. ELECTION TRIBUNAL (Ramaswami, I.)
49S
the Crown. After much consideration, it was agreed that
where a void election only was alleged, a new writ should
be issued (Southampton and Carlow writs, 29 Dec. 1852);
and again, in 1859 and in 1880, the same rule was
adopted.
Where the seat is claimed, it has been ruled that the
writ should be withheld until after the trial of that claim
(Athlone Election, 1859), or until the petition has been
withdrawn [Louth Election (Mr. Chichester Fortescue),
1866J.
In 1859, Viscount Bury accepted office under the Crown,
while
a
petition
against
his return for Norwich,
on the ground of bribery, was pending; and, as his scat
was not claimed, a new writ was issued. Being again returned, a petition was presented against his second election,
claiming the seat for another candidate. The petition
against the first election came on for trial, and the committee reported that the sitting Members, Lord Bury and
Mr. Schneider, had been guilty, by their agents, of bribery
at that election. By virtue of that report, Lord Bury, under
the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, became incapable
of sitting or voting in Parliament, or, in other words, ceased
to be a Member of the House; but as a petition against
his second return, claiming the sel).t, was then pending, a new writ was not issued [Par!. Deb. (1859) 155,
c. 865]."
For these reasons we hold that the High Court was right in
holding that no case was made out for the issue of a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission and this appeal must be accordingly dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
I
"-' .·