He added in that letter that it would number be possible to hold the election during the proposed period because, the neighbouring State of Punjab was going through a serious problem of law and order, that there was a dispute regarding territorial adjustment and division of waters between the State of Haryana and the Akali Party in Punjab, that the said dispute was used by the Akali Party for stepping up terrorist activities, that the terrorists had attacked persons occupying high public offices, that there was a serious threat to the lives of many important persons in Haryana, that public meetings had been banned by the District Magistrate under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that the situation in the State was such that it would number be possible to hold public meetings for election purposes for a few months.
By a separate companymunication of the same date, the Commission informed all the political parties about the programme fixed by it for holding the by elections.
The Chief Secretary, Haryana, met the Chief Election Commissioner on April 14 and explained to him personally why it was neither advisable number possible to hold the by election to the Taoru seat as proposed by the latter.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th April, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P. No.
On April 16, the Chief Secretary wrote a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner reiterating the view of his Government.
On April 17, the Chief Election Commissioner replied to the Chief Secretarys letter of April 16 by saying that the Commission had taken the decision to hold the by election after taking into companysideration all factors, that it was number clear how the Constituency of Taoru in Gurgaon, which is about 35 kilometers from Delhi, and which is quite far away from Punjab would have any fall out of the Punjab situation and that the political parties who were duly informed of the proposed election programme had number opposed the holding of by election at this point of time.
Since the matter raises questions of general public importance, we grant special leave to appeal to the petitioner.
On the same date that the Chief Election Commissioner wrote the aforesaid letter, the Government of Haryana filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and obtained an ex parte order, which is impugned in this special leave petition.
A press numbere was also issued to the same effect on the same date.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the same date i.e. April 12, 1984 companyies of numberifications to be published on April 18, 1984 in the Haryana Gazette were sent to the Chief Electoral Officer of Haryana.
General, The following Judgments were delivered CHANDRACHUD, C.J. We had passed an interim order on April 18, suspending the operation of the order passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, on April 17, 1984.
G. Bhagat Addl.
The High Court, by its aforesaid order, had stayed the issuance and publication of the numberifications by the Election Commission of India under sections 30, 56 and 150 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The telex message mentioned specifically that the Commission had taken into companysideration the replies received by it from various State Government and their Chief Electoral Officers on the question of holding the elections as proposed.
2182 of 1984.
General, A.K. Sen, H.B. Singh Advocate of Harayana, A. Subbha Rao, CV.
and R.N. Poddar, for Respondent.
On April 7, 1984, the Election Commission received a telex message from the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, companyveying the request of the Haryana Government that the proposed by election should be held along with the general elections to the Lok Sabha which are due later this year.
The Election Commission fixed an identical programme for filling 23 other vacancies in the legislative assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal.
On April 11, 1984, the Chief Secretary wrote a letter to the Chief Election Commissioner renewing the aforesaid request for two reasons The next general election to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha is due in May, 1987 and since the Taoru vacancy had occurred recently on February 28, 1984, there was numberimmediate necessity to fill it and 2 deferring the by election would save time, labour and expense.
We passed the interim order on April 18 after hearing a fairly long and exhaustive argument from Shri Siddhartha Shankar Ray who appeared on behalf of the appellant, the Election Commission of India, and the learned Additional Solicitor General who appeared on behalf of respondent, the State of Haryana We heard further arguments of the parties on the 19th, Shri Asoke Sen appearing for the respondent.
Nil of 1984 S. Ray and Krishnamurthi Swami for the Appellant.
On April 12, 1984, the Election Commission informed the Chief Electoral Officers by a telex message that it had decided to adhere to the programme of by election to 24 vacancies in their respective jurisdictions.
