PIL 37/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL JUDGMENT & ORDER (B.D. Agarwal, J) Four leading citizens of the State of Manipur have filed this Pu blic Interest Litigation, entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, praying for quashing the Notification No. 1/20/2009-CHA (i) dated 26.4.201 0 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Manipur setting in motion electi on of one member each from Autonomous District Councils. The said Notification w as purportedly issued under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Manipur (Hill Areas) District Councils (Election of Members) Rules, 2009. The petitioners are also pr aying for quashing the follow up Notifications issued by Sub-Divisional Officer/ Returning Officer and fixing the schedule of Election. 2. We have heard Ms. U Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as w ell as Sri N Kotiswar, learned Advocate General for the State of Manipur. The re spondent No.3 was represented by the Standing Counsel Mr. L S Singh, Sr.Advocate ; whereas the Union of India (Respondent no.4) was represented by Sri R Sarma, A ssistant Solicitor General. We have also perused the affidavit filed on behalf o f the respondent No.3. As per order of this court the Govt. also produced the re levant files and that was also perused by us. 3. The aforesaid Notifications have been assailed from two angles. Firstly it has been contended that the Chief Secretary of Manipur was away from Manipur since 23.4.2010 to attend an official training abroad and as such he cou ld not have signed the Notification on 26.4.2010. It has also been stated in the Writ Petition and contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid Notification was published in a local daily on 26.4.2010 and for publ ication of any document or news the newspaper have to get the document/ informa tion beforehand. To put it differently the learned counsel submitted that since the Notification of the Chief Secretary was published in a local newspaper : Sa ngai Express on 26 .4.2010 it has to be inferred and presumed that the Notific ation was signed and circulated from the office of the Chief Secretary on 25.4.2 010, which was a Government holiday being Sunday. It was submitted that ordinari ly no Govt. business is transacted on a holiday and on this ground also the impu gned Notification (Annexure-2) be declared as a fabricated document and subseque nt notification issued by Returning Officers as null and void. 4. The second limb of attack to the impugned Notifications is that the process of District Councils Election was supposed to have been declared on 15th and 22nd April, 2010. However, the election schedule was withheld for about 10 days since the Govt. could not declare the result of DPC for appointment of Primary Teachers under Churandpur Autonomous District Council. It has been averr ed in the Writ Petition that the said DPC result was declared on 21.4.2010 but f or obscure reasons the result was first published in a vernacular newspaper The Gosem on 26.4.2010 only i.e. after lapse of 5 days from the purported date of declaration of the DPC result. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that declaration of DPC result for Primary Teachers simultaneously with the ele ction schedule was actuated with malafide intention. The learned counsel also su bmitted that withholding of election Notification till the declaration of DPC re sult was politically motivated and as such, the declaration of DPC result for Pr imary Teachers had direct nexus on the impartiality and fair play in the Electio n of District Council Members and on this ground also the Notifications are liab le to be set aside. 5. The respondents have also challenged the maintainability of the PIL on the ground that neither the declaration of the Autonomous District Counci ls Election has violated any fundamental rights of the petitioner nor the same i s in contravention of principles of natural justice. It has also been contended in the affidavit of respondent No.3. that although the petitioners are from Tame nglong, Ukhrul and Senapati Districts, they have no locus standi to challenge th e election of the other Autonomous District Councils. 6. In our considered opinion since the Writ Petition can be decided on merit it is not advisable to dismiss the same on the ground of locus standi. 7. The respondents’ further case is that election of members of Aut onomous District Councils was long over due and, in fact, one Mr. Ngachonmi Cham roy, a social worker from Hill Areas of Manipur had also filed a PIL (3/2009) be fore the Gauhati High Court seeking a direction to the Govt. to hold election of the 6 (six) Autonomous District Councils as per provisions of Manipur (Hills Ar eas) District Councils Act, 1971 (as amended) and corresponding Rules. The said PIL was ultimately withdrawn on 18.3.2010, since Govt. had taken a decision to hold the election as early as possible. In other words, it is the case of the re spondents that the election of autonomous District Councils had no nexus with DP C result inasmuch as , the decision to hold the said election was taken long bac k. 8. The aforesaid stand of the respondents is rather fortified from the averments made in the writ petition. The writ petitioners themselves have st ated in paragraph -9 that the Govt. had already assured to the public that the f irst phase of election will be declared by 15.4.2010 and second by 22.4.2010. Th e relevant files also indicate that the elections were not declared in haste but the said decision was taken after due deliberation over a period of time and th at too in consultation with the Govt. of India. 9. At this, it may be mentioned here that elections were held in tw o phases. The first phase of election was held on 26.5.2010 and 2nd phase was he ld on 2.6.2010, since this court did not stay the process of election while admi tting the PIL. 10. There is no whisper in the Writ Petition about any anomaly in th e selection of Primary Teachers to take a view that DPC results were intentional ly published just before announcement of election to take a view that the said D PC result had influenced the elections. Even otherwise, we are of the view that declaration of schedule of an election is a political decision of the Govt. and the courts ordinarily do not interfere in such policy matter of the Govt. Had t he DPC result for Primary Teachers would have announced after the commencement o f the election it would certainly have a bearing in the election for violation o f the code of conduct. However, admittedly the DPC result was declared on 21.4.2 010. The DPC result has been annexed under Annexure A/9 and it appears to be a v oluminous one and this may be one of the reasons for publishing the same after f ive days. Unless there is any allegation about malafide in the publication of th e DPC result, we are not inclined to drag our feet to find fault in the publicat ion of the result after five days, intervened by two holidays. 11. It appears to us that the impugned Notifications have been basic ally assailed on the ground that atleast the Notification dated 26.4.2010 was an tedated inasmuch the Chief Secretary was away from Manipur and he could not have signed the same either on 25.4.2010 or 26.4.2010. In this regard, the responden ts’ version is that the Chief Secretary was in India till 26.4.2010 and as such no other officer could have signed the said Notification. It is the further case of the respondents that the election schedule was approved by the State Cabinet on 22.4.2010 and as such the Govt. was bound to issue the Notification by 26.4. 2010. Since the Chief Secretary was in Delhi on 26.4.2010 the draft Notificatio n was sent to him by Fax and obtained his approval and signature by Fax. 12. After hearing of the PIL was over and during the pendency of pro nouncement of the judgment the respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit to clarify th at the Chief Secretary had in fact signed the Notification on 24.10.2010 and ret urned the same on the same day after signature and not on 25.4.2010, as stated i n the original affidavit of respondent No.3. In other words, the additional affi davit registered as (Misc.case No.3683/2010) was filed to correct the date of Fa x Message to and from the Chief Secretary and upon hearing both the parties, the affidavit of respondents was directed to be considered with the final judgment in the PIL. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners have filed written obj ection stating that the original version is correct and the averments made in th e affidavit of Misc Case No. 3683/2010 are false, incorrect and that the applica tion has been filed only to mislead the Court. 13. Since the averments about signing the Notification on 24.4.2010 is based on documentary evidence, we have also consulted the relevant files and notice that draft Notification was sent to the Chief Secretary for his approval and signature by Fax on 24.4.2010 by the Principal Secretary (Hills), Government of Manipur. The Notification was sent by Fax and the Chief Secretary also retur ned the same duly signed on the same day, albeit, the Notification is dated 26.4 .2010. In this way the averments made in Misc Case No. 3683/2010 appears to be based on record and the averments made in the original affidavit of Respondent N o. 3 that the notification was received back on 25.04.2010 appears to be bonafid e mistake. 14. We have already mentioned earlier that the election schedule was to be d eclared as per cabinet decision and since the Chief Secretary was going abroad, his signature was obtained in advance. It may be mentioned here that it is not t he case of the petitioners that the election Notification was issued in the name of the Chief Secretary by some other officer, putting a forged signature of the Chief Secretary. In our considered opinion, urgent Govt. business through Fax a nd using other scientific and electronic methods can be permitted. To say it dif ferently, the action of the respondents in obtaining the signature of the Chief Secretary using electronic device per-se cannot be said to be illegal. 15. For the reasons alluded herein above, we are constrained to hold that the Writ Petition (PIL) is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dism issed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not propose to impose a ny cost.