JUDGMENT
R.K. Patra, J.
1. The petitioner who is one of the elected members of the Ganjam Zilla Parishad has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for declaration that opposite parties 5 to 10 have ceased to hold office as members of (he Zilla Parishad. He has also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties 2 and 3 to fill up those vacant seats held by those opposite parties.
2. The case of the petitioner is that results of
election to the Ganjam Zilla Parishad (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Parishad’) were duly published
on 29-1-1997 in the Official Gazette and its
elected members were deemed to have held office
with effect from that date. The Additional District
Magistrate, Ganjam in letter No. 1084/GP dated
4-2-1997 (Annexure-1) noticed all the elected,
members to attend the D.R.D.A. Conference Hall,
Chatrapur on 15-2-1997 at 10.30 A.M. to take
oath of allegiance. Pursuant to the said notice, 36.
elected members out of 69 took their oath and the
first meeting of the Parishad was held on that day
itself and one Smt. Renubala Pradhan was elected
as the President of the Parishad. The second
meeting of the Parishad was held on 25-2-1997 at
11.00 A.M. On that day (25-2-1997) 26 other
elected members took their oath. In the said
meeting, one Smt. Shanli Devi was elected as the
Vice-President. The third meeting of the Parishad
was held on 1-5-1997 and one more elected
member took oath on that day. The opposite
parties 5 to 10 who were present in all the aforesaid
three meetings did not take oath or affirmation of
allegiance to the Constitution of India. As a
consequence, they have ceased to be members of
the Parishad on their failure to lake oath or
affirmation at any one of the first three meetings
of the Parishad as envisaged in Sub-section (2) of
Section 36 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Act, 1991
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The fourth meeting of the Parishad was held on 30-7-1997. The opposite parties 5 to 10 although have ceased to be the members of the Parishad, the Collector, Ganjam who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Parishad illegally wanted to administer oath. It was pointed out by some members that opposite parties 5 to 10 have ceased to be the members of the Parishad and they should not have been allowed to attend the meeting. On account of such objection, the attempt of the Collector to administer oath to them was foiled. In the meeting, it was decided that the dispute should be referred to the State Government for its decision but till now, no decision, has been communicated from the Government level. The Stale Election Commission, Orissa, however, in his letter dated 19-8-1997. (Annexure-3) communicated its views stating, inter alia, that as per the executive instructions, the respective Collectors of the districts were to complete administering oath of office to the elected members of the Zilla Parishad and the concerned Collector having not done so, his lapse “should not negate the people’s mandate in favour of the elected members” particularly when the Collector allowed them to attend the meetings and the six elected members could be administered oath of office. The State Election Commission further opined, as it appears from the aforesaid letter (Annexure-3) that if any one thinks that those six members have ceased to hold office, he can file an election dispute. As the opinion of the Slate Election Commission was unwarranted and legally untenable the petitioner made representation to the principal Secretary to the Government in the Panchayati Raj (G.P.) Department on 3-10-1997 (Annexure-4) requesting him to take necessary steps to fill up the vacancies caused on account of cessation of opposite parties 5 to 10 to be members of the Parishad, The Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer in letter dated 1-10-1997 (Annexurc-5) however wrote to the Government that since no clarification has yet been received, he would permit opposite parties 5 to 10 to lake part in the deliberations of the Parishad scheduled to be held on 4-10-1997 in anticipation of the Government order. The opposite parties 5 to 10 being encouraged by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer came to the meeting on 4-10-1997 but the Parishad decided not to allow them to take their seats as they have already ceased to be members.
According to the petitioner, the provisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act are mandatory and the opposite parties 5 to 10 having not taken their oath or affirmation as required thereunder within the prescribed time have ceased 10 hold office and their seats have fallen vacant.
3. The ColIector-cum-Chief Executive Officer. Ganjam Zilla Parishad and the Project Director-cum-Ex-Officio Secretary, Ganjam Zilla Parishad. Chatrapur who are opposite-parties 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit. Their case is that the first meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1997 to elect the President and the second meeting was held on 25-2-1997 to elect the Vice-President. In both the aforesaid meetings, no other transaction except the election of President and Vice-president was carried out The third meeting was fixed to 23-4-1997 but the same was postponed due to demise of Biju Patnajk. The third meeting was held on 1-5-1997 where a resolution was brought by the President to pay tributes to the departed soul of late Biju Patnaik by cancelling all the items of agenda fixed earlier. Therefore, no reasonable opportunity was made available in the first three meetings for opposite parties 5 to 10 to take their oath. In the fourth, meeting held on 30-7-1997 one of the members of the Parishad raised objection about the continuance of the opposite parties 5 to 10 as members. Accordingly, it was resolved to move the Government seeking clarification in the matter. On that day (30-7-1997) although opposite parties 5 to 10 were present, they could not take oath in view of the opposition raised by some members of the Parishad. The opposite parties 2 and 3 have further stated in the counter-affidavit that in view of the opinion of the State. Election Commission, such members who have not been able to take their oath can now be administered oath.
The opposite party No. 4, the President of the Parishad has also filed counter-affidavit. Her case is that on 30-1-1997 the names of elected members of the Parishad were notified and as such, all the elected members were deemed to have held office from that day. On 4-2-1997 the Election Officer, Chatrapur as per Annexure-1 informed all the elected members to attend the D.R.D.A. Conference Hall on 15-2-1997 to take oath of allegiance. The Election Officer also issued notice as required under Rule 48(1)(i) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Election Rules, 1994 (Annexure-A/4) stating that the first meeting of the parishad would be held on 15-2-1997 at 11.00 A.M. in the D.R.D.A. Conference Hall, Chatrapur “to elect the President of the Parishad”. On the date fixed (15-2-1997) out of 69 elected members, 36 took their oath, but opposite parties 5 to 10 although were present did not avail the opportunity. The opposite party No. 4 was elected as President on that day (vide proceedings dated 15-2-1997 at Annexure-C/4). On the case day, the Election Officer issued notice (Annexure-D/ 4) in the prescribed form for holding the second meeting of the Parishad on 25-2-1997 with the agenda “to elect the Vice-President of the Parishad”. Opposite Parties 5 to 10 were also present on that day (25-2-1997) but they did not take oath or affirmation although other 26 elected members of the remaining 38 who had got taken oath earlier took their oath. As per the agenda, the election for the post of Vice-President took place on the date fixed and one Smt. Shanti Devi was elected as the Vice-President (vide proceeding dated 25-2-1997 at Annexure-E/4). Notice for the third meeting of the Parishad was issued by the President on 21-4-1997 (Annexure-F/4) fixing the date to 1-5-1997. On the same day (21-4-1997) the Secretary of the Parishad issued notice for the third meeting to be held on 1-5-1997 (Annexurc-G/4). On 1-5-1997, the third meeting was duly held under the Chairmanship of the President and the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Parishad and other members were present. Cancelling other items of the agenda, a resolution condoling the sad demise of Biju Patnaik was moved and passed after paying tribute to the departed soul (Annexure-H/4). The opposite parties 5 to 10 also did not take their oath on that day. Thereafter, the Secretary of the Parishad issued notice dated 15-7-1997 for the next meeting fixing 20-7-1997 (Annexure-J/4). As per the programme, the fourth meeting took place on 30-7-1997 and the proceedings of the third meeting dated 1 -5-1997 were duly approved (Annexure-K/4).
4. This case was finally heard on 31-3-1998 and judgment was reserved. On 2-4-1998, opposite parties 8 and 9 filed Misc. Case Nos. 4551 and 4552 of 1998 alleging that no notice in the case was served on them and, as such, they should be given an opportunity of hearing. Both the aforesaid Misc. Cases were put up for consideration on 6-4-1998. On that day (6-4-1998) opposite party No. 7 also filed a similar application bearing Misc. Case No. 4793 of 1998. All the applications (Misc. Case Nos. 4551, 4552 and 4793 of 1998) were considered on 6-4-1998 and by separate order passed on that day, we came to hold that the opposite parties were duly served with notices. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we heard Shri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel appearing for them on that day on the merits of the case.
5. Before adverting to the legal contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to delineate certain basic facts because Shri S.D. Das, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No. 5 by referring to the notice dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure-G/4) and notice dated 15-7-1997 (Annexure-J/4) submitted that the first and second meetings of the Parishad were respectively held on 1-5-1997 and 30-7-1997 whereas it is consistent case of the petitioner as well as the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Parishad and Project Director-cum-Ex-Office Secretary (opposite parties 2 and 3) that the first, second, third and the fourth meetings of the Parishad were held respectively on 15-2-1997, 25-2-1997, 1-5-1997 and 20-7-1997.
6. Section 2(1) of the Act defines “Zilla Parishad” to mean the body constituted under Sub-section (1) of Section 3. Section 3 states that the Government may by notification constitute a Parishad for every district. It is an undisputed fact that the State Government in its notification dated 29-1-1997 constituted the Parishad after results of the election were pronounced. Section 8 deals with election of President and Vice-President. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that the members of the Parishad shall, at its ‘first meeting” which shall be convened after publication of the names under Section 6(2) of the Act elect in the prescribed manner a President from among them and at a subsequent meeting which shall be specially convened for the purpose within 30 days from the date of the election of the President, elect the Vice-President from among them. Rule 48(1)(i) of the Orissa Zilla Parishad Election Rules, 1994 provides that a notice in Form No. 13 notifying the date, time and place of the first meeting of the Parishad shall be issued within three days of the publication of the notification. Note (a) appended to the aforesaid Rule 48 states that the first meeting referred to in Rule 48(1)(i) shall mean the first meeting as referred to in Section 8. Form No. 13 is reproduced hereunder:
“FORM No. 13
(See Rule 48(1)(i))
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the first meeting of the…….. Zilla Parishad shall be held at the place mentioned below on ……… (date) at…… (time).
Place of Meeting
Agenda .
To elect the President
of the Parishad.
Election Officer.”
7. On a combined reading of Section 8, Rule 48 (1)(i) and Form No. 13, we have no hesitation to hold that the first meeting of the Parishad is to be held to elect its President.
8. The notice at Annexure-A/4 would clearly show that the Election Officer issued notice stating that the first meeting of the Parishad would be held on 15-2-1997 at 11.00 A.M. in the D.R.D.A. Conference Hall, Chatrapur to elect the President of the Parishad. To avoid any controversy, it is profitable to extract the relevant part of Annexure-A/4 which reads as under :
"xx xx xx xx
FORM No. 13
(See Rule 48(1)(i))
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the first meeting of the Ganjam Zilla Parishad Hall be held at the place mentioned below on 15-2-1997 (date) at 11.00 A.M. (time).
Place of Meeting : D.A.R.A. Conference Hall,
Chatrapur
Agenda : To elect the President of the Parishad
xx xx xx
Sd/-
Election Officer".
Pursuant to the said notice, the first meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1997 to elect the President. (Annexure-B/4 is the notice calling For nomination of the candidates for the office of the President wherein the date was mentioned as 15-9-1997 for the purpose). Annexure-C/4 is the proceedings of the meeting held on 15-2-1997 in which President was elected. The original resolution book of the Parishad was produced before us which shows that its first meeting was held on 15-2-1997. The resolution further goes to show that at 10.30 A.M. a number of elected members were administered oath but the opposite parties 5 to 20 whose names find mention in the resolution book did not take oath for the reasons best known to them. The second meeting of the Parishad was held on 15-2-1997 as it evident from the original resolution book. The copy of the resolution adopted on that day is at Annexure-E/4. In this meeting, one Shanti Devi was elected as Vice-President Some of the elected members who had not taken their oath previously were administered oath. The opposite parties 5 to 10 were present in the meeting and also signed against their names but did not take oath. The third meeting of the Parishad was held on 1-5-1997. The opposite parties 5 to 7 and 10 were present in the meeting which is evident from their signatures taken in the resolution book but did not take the oath. Opposite paty No. 8 (S. Rajeswari Dora) and opposite party No. 9 (Sobharani Patra) also did not avail of the opportunity to take their oath. For the meeting dated 1-5-1997, the following agenda was fixed (vide Annexure-F/4) :
“1. Condolence for the sad demise of the former Chief Minister, Orissa and Member of Parliament representing Aska Parliamentary Constituency.
2. Formation of Standing Committee.
3. Seventh Standing Committee Formation.
4. Any other matter with the permission of the Chair.”
The meeting was accordingly convened on that day (1-5-1997). The President (Chairperson) after cancelling other items fixed for discussion took up item No. 1 of the agenda and moved resolution condoling the death of Biju Patnaik which was unanimously passed. Copy of the resolution is at Annexure-E/4. Thereafter the meeting was concluded after giving vote of thanks to the President. Biju Patnaik died on 17-4-1997. In the notice dated 21-4-1997 (vide Annexure-F/4), the aforesaid four items were fixed for discussion in the meeting dated 1-5-1997 and item No. 1 related to passing of resolution condoling the death of the late leader. It was not that the death had taken place on the day the meeting was fixed and no other transaction could have taken place except passing of the condolence resolution. After item No. 1 of the agenda was over, the Parishad could have taken up item Nos. 2 and 3 also for discussion but they were not done. It was, therefore, not a meeting where there was no transaction of any business. Passing of the resolution condoling the death being one of the items in the agenda was also “business” which was transacted. Il may be noted at the cost of repetition that opposite parties 2 and 3 who are none other than the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Parishad and the Project Director-cum-Ex-Officio Secretary, Ganjam Zilla Parishad, have stated in their counter-affidavit that the first, second and third meetings of the Parishad took place on 15-2-1997, 25-2-1997 and 1-5-1997 respectively. The next meeting (fourth meeting) took place on 20-7-1997 which is also not disputed by the aforesaid opposite parties 2 and 3.
8A. Relying on the notice dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure-G/4) and notice dated 15-7-1997 (Annexure-3/4), Shri S.D. Das, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 5 submitted that the first and second meetings of the Parishad were respectively held on 1-5-1997 and 30-7-1997. He submitted so because of the fact that in the aforesaid two notices it was mentioned that the first meeting of the Parishad would be held on 1-5-1997 and the second meeting would lake place on 30-7-1997.
It is true that in the notices (Annexure-G/4 and J/4) issued by the Secretary of the Parishad, it was stated that the first and the second meeting of the Parishad respectively was to take place on I -5-1997 and 30-7-1997. The mention of the words “first meeting” in Annexure-G/4 and “second meeting” in Annexure-J/4 is obviously an incorrect statement of fact. AN already stated under law (vide Rules. 1994) the first meeting is required to be held to elect the President of the Parishad. The Election Officer issued statutory notice in the prescribed form No. 13 (Annexure-A/4) stating that the first meeting of the Parishad would be held on 15-2-1997 to elect the President. Pursuant to the said notice, the meeting was in fact held on 15-2-1997 and Renubala Pradhan was elected as the President. In the face of the statutory notice (Annexure-A/4) the notice dated 21-4-1997 (Annexure-G/4) issued by the Secretary of the Parishad stating that the “first meeting” of the Parishad would take place on 1-5-1997 is meaningless and has to be ignored. Perusal of Anncxurc-G/4 would further show that the agenda for the meeting was in respect of Constitution of Standing Committee and any other item (with permission of the President). Had it been a notice for the “first meeting”, the agenda would have been “to elect the President” which was not the case. For the aforesaid reason, we have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of Shri Das that the first meeting was held on 1-5-1997. The next meeting was held on 25-2-1997 which was the second meeting followed by the third meeting held on 1-5-1997. Accordingly, the mere mention of the word’s “PRATHAM ADHIBESAN” (first meeting) in Annexure-G/4 and “DITIYA ADHIBESAN” (second meeting) in Annexure-J/4cannotconvertthemeetingsheldon 1-5-1997 and 30-7-1997 as the first and the second meetings.
9. Shri B.K. Dash, learned Standing Counsel appearing for opposite parties 2 and 3 contended that the meeting (third meeting) held on 1-5-1997 cannot be held to be a meeting as no “business” mentioned in Rule 26 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1996 was transacted on that day. Shri Manoj Mishra. learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties 7 to 9 also argued in the same line on 6-4-1998. According to them, the meeting subsequently held on 20-7-1997 should be held to be the third meeting of the Parishad. The aforesaid argument made by Shri Dash, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 is contrary to the stand take by them (opposite parties 2 and 3) in their counter-affidavit wherein they have clearly and rightly stated that the third meeting of the Parishad took place on 1-5-1997.
Let us now look at Rule 26 of the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Business) Rules, 1996 on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for opposite parties.
Section 51 of the Act empowers the Stale Government to make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the Act. In exercise of that power, the State Government have made the Orissa Zilla Parishad (Conduct of Business) Rules. 1996 (for short 1996 Rules). For the sake of convenience. Rule 26 of the aforesaid rules is extracted hereunder:
“26. Business of the day :– A list of business for the day shall be prepared by the presiding member in the following order, namely :–
(a) the rninutes of the last meeting held shall be read and if approved as correctly entered shall be signed by the presiding member of such meeting. If any portion or portions of the proceedings are challenged and not acceded to, it shall be left to the decision of the Parishad. The minutes then amended as per this decision shall be signed by the President.
(b) Interpretations and questions :
(c) papers to be laid on the table of the Parishad
for the first time (No discussion shall be allowed
on these papers on that day);
(d) election of members of Standing Committee, if
(e) review of the progress of development works in the district and of the income and expenditure of the Parishad;
(f) matters relating to urgent official business brought forward by the presiding member;
(g) any motion regarding change of order of business;
(h) proceedings of Standing Committee of the
Parishad, if arty;
(i) resolutions; and
(j) other official business”.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that it (the said Rule 26) deals with the manner in which the list of business for the day is required to be prepared by the presiding member. Under Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules, a member can be chosen to preside over the meeting of the Parishad in absence of both the President and the Vice-President and he is called the “presiding member”. Rule 26 is a guidance to him and he has to set the list of business in the manner described therein. In any case, the list mentioned as business for the day in Rule 26 is illustrative and not exhaustive. The said rule thus has got nothing to do as to what kind of agenda will be placed in the meeting. We have already noted that in the notice dated 21 -4-1997 (Annexure-F/4) issued by the President, four items of agenda were stated for discussion and the President after cancelling other Hems look up item No. I of the agenda and moved resolution condoling the death of Biju Patnaik. After the resolution was passed, the meeting was concluded giving vote of thanks to the President. May it be stated that taking of oath or affirmation of allegiance to the Constitution of India by an elected member is never an item of the agenda of the Parishad meeting. There was no prohibition for taking oath or making affirmation of allegiance on 1-5-1997.
10. By referring to the “Explanation” appended to Section 33(2)(iii) of the Act it was contended by some of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties that the meeting held on 1-5-1997 was an ‘adjourned meeting’ and failure to take oath by opposite parties 5 to 10 on that day was of little consequence. We have duly considered the aforesaid submission. Section 33(2)(iii) with its ‘Explanation’ is extracted hereunder:
“(2) An elected member of a Parishad including the President and Vice-President shall cease to be a member if he–
(i) to (ii)…..
(iii) has absented himself without permission from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Parishad on passing a resolution by the Parishad to that effect in the manner hereinafter specified, namely–
(a) to (e) ……
Explanation.– The meetings which are adjourned without transacting any business shall not be reckoned as ordinary meetings of the Parishad.”
A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that on passing of resolution by the Parishad in the prescribed manner that an elected member (including the President and Vice-President) has absented himself without permission from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Parishad, he shall cease to be a member of the Parishad. The explanation appended thereto explains that if the meeting is adjourned without transacting any business it shall not be taken as an ‘ordinary meeting’ of the Parishad. In other words abstinence of a member (including President and Vice-President) without permission in an adjourned meeting will not come within the mischief of the aforesaid provision. It is well known that an “explanation” is appended to a section to explain the meaning of the words contained therein. The Legislature by inserting the explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the Act has made the position clear that an adjourned meeting without transacting any business is not an “ordinary meeting” and an absentee member (including President and Vice-President) shall not incur the disqualification flowing from his absence from three consecutive ordinary meetings of the Parishad. The aforesaid explanation of Sub-section (2) of Section 33 does not find mention in Section 36(2) of the Act. The “explanation” appended to Sub-section (2) of Section 33 to explain the meaning of ‘adjourned meeting’ is confined and restricted to Section 33 only and it cannot be imported to Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act which in clear and unambiguous terms declares that if any member fails to make the oath or affirmation in any of the first three meetings of the Parishad, he shall cease to hold office as such. The word ‘meetings’ occurring therein is not qualified by any expression like ‘ordinary’ or ’emergent’ or ‘special’ or any other type of meeting. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to reject the contention that the meeting held on 1 -5-1997 Was an ‘adjourned meeting’.
11. On careful consideration of the resolutions and the relevant provisions of law and for the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the first, second and third meetings of the Parishad respectively took place on 15-2-1997, 25-2-1997 and 1-5-1997 and opposite parties 5 to 10 did not take their oath in any of those meetings.
12. What is the consequence of failure of opposite parties 5 to 10 to take oath or affirmation in May of the first three meetings of the Parishad. Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act, so far as relevant, reads as follows :
“36. Oath of allegiance :
(1) xxxx
(2) Any such member, President or Vice-President who fails to make, within three months of the date with effect from which he holds office or at any one of the first three meetings of the Parishad whichever is later, the oath or affirmation as aforesaid, shall cease to hold office as such and thereupon the seat shall become vacant.
(3)xx xx xx xx xx”
In the case at hand, we are not concerned with the first limb of the aforesaid provision. It is the specific allegation of the petitioner that the opposite parties 5 to 10 have incurred disqualification to hold office as members of the Parishad on their failure to take oath or affirmation in any of the first three meetings of the Parishad. In view of the fact that opposite parties 5 to 10 have failed to take oath or affirmation in any of the first three meetings of the Parishad (15-2-1997, 26-2-1997 and 1-5-1997), each of them has ceased to hold the office of member of the Parishad. As a consequence, all the six seats held by them have fallen vacant which are to be filled up according to law.
13. No other point was urged on behalf of the opposite parties.
14. In the result, this application is allowed. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed 16 take necessary steps to fill up the vacant seats caused on account of cessation of opposite parties 5 to 10 as members of the Parishad. There would be no order as to costs.
15. Before parting with the case, we are constrained to express our displeasure and dismay at the opinion rendered by the State Election Commission as communicated by its Secretary in letter dated 19-8-1997 at Annexure-3. As provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the ACT, any of the members of the Parishad who fails to take oath or affirmation in any one of the first three1 meetings of the Parishad shall cease to hold office as such. There is no ambiguity in the provision. Once it is found that a member has not taken oath or affirmation in any one of the first three meetings of the Parishad, he incurs the disqualification to hold office of member. Keeping the aforesaid provision in view, the State Election Commission ought to have examined if the opposite parties 5 to 10 failed to take oath or affirmation in any of the first three meetings of, the Parishad. In stead of doing so, it seems to navel found fault with the District Collector in not administering oath of office to them. Its view that since they were all elected representatives of the people and when the Collector allowed them to attend the meetings, they could be administered’ oath of office at any time even if they had failed to take the oath in any of the first three meetings is not based on any provision of law. The provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 36 is mandatory and does not admit of any exception. In the face of such clear provision, we do not find any justification for the State Election Commission to render its opinion in the manner it did. The Commission is an independent and responsible body. Its opinion in any matter relating to the dispute of election should be sound based on proper interpretation of the provisions of the relevant statute. Its opinion as communicated by its Secretary in its letter at Annexure-3 is untenable in law and is liable to be ignored and we order accordingly.
A copy of this judgment may be sent to the
State Election Commission for its guidance in
future. We hope and trust that while rendering
any legal opinion, it would strictly be guided by
the provisions of law and would not too the line
of some one remaining behind the scene and
trying to pull the string.
Pradipta Ray, J.
16. I agree.
