JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Rana waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, order, dated February 21, 1992 passed by the Chief Election Commissioner of India directing that the Peasants and Workers Party of India is no longer entitled to recognition as a State Party in the State of Maharashtra under Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Symbols Order, is under challenge. The Chief Election Commissioner of India directed that the party is not entitled to the exclusive use of the Symbol ‘Cart’ earlier reserved for the Party in the State of Maharashtra and the petitioners shall only be a registered unrecognised political party for the purposes of the Symbols Order. It is not necessary to set out the reasons which prompted the Election Commissioner of India to pass the impugned order as we are inclined to set aside the order on a very narrow ground that the petitioners had not sufficient opportunity to present their case in person. We wish to make it very clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
2. Shri Rane, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the consequences of the impugned order are extremely serious and the petitioners who are working as a Political Party and enjoyed the Symbol ‘Cart’ for over several years are deprived of that advantage. Shri Rane submitted that the respondents should have given sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to make personal representation. To appreciate the contention, only few dates are required to be set out. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioners on December 4, 1991 to explain as to why the recognition under the Symbols Order should not be withdrawn. The petitioners were called upon to file reply by December 16, 1991. On December 21, 1991, the petitioners sought time to file reply till the end of March, 1992 on the spacious ground that the office-bearers of the party are busy in local election. On December 27, 1991, the Chief Election Commissioner of India informed that it is not possible to extend time and the reply should be filed before January 15, 1992. The reply was, accordingly, filed by the petitioners on January 13, 1992 and personal hearing was sought. The Election Commissioner of India informed the petitioners by letter, dated January 23, 1992 that personal hearing will be granted on February 5, 1992. On February 4, 1992, the petitioners sent a telegram seeking postponement of the personal hearing. The petitioners claim that they had also spoken on telephone to some Secretary in the Election Commissioner’s Office. On February 10, 1992, another telegram was sent. The petitioners were informed that it is not possible to grant any further time for personal hearing and ultimately, on February 21, 1992 the impugned order was passed.
3. Though we are not very impressed by the manner in which the petitioners have handled the proceedings before the Chief Election Commissioner, in our judgment, it would be appropriate if a fresh opportunity is given to the petitioners to advance oral submissions before the Election Commissioner of India. We are conscious that the Election Commissioner of India has shown sufficient latitude to the petitioners to enable them to make representation and the petitioners have failed to take advantage of the same without any valid reason. In spite of these considerations, we are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the petitioners as the consequences of the impugned order are extremely serious and affect a political party of a long standing. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and direct the Chief Election Commissioner of India to grant another opportunity to the petitioners to make personal representation. We are granting this concession to the petitioners on the undertaking of Shri Rane, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that no time or adjournment will be sought after the Chief Election Commissioner of India fixes a date, suitable and convenient to the Chief Election Commissioner, for personal hearing.
4. Accordingly, petition succeeds and the impugned order, dated February 21, 1992 is set aside and the proceedings are remitted back to the Chief Election Commissioner of India for giving fresh opportunity to the petitioners for personal hearing and then pass appropriate order. The undertaking given by the petitioners through their counsel not to seek any adjournment of the hearing which will be fixed by the Chief Election Commissioner of India is accepted. The petitioners shall pay the costs of the respondents.