G.K. Govinda Bhat, C.J.
1. This appeal by the Tahsildar and Returning Officer, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bhalki, Bidar District, who is respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 5138 of 1975, is directed against the order D/- 11-12-1975 made by Venkataramiah, J., allowing the writ petition of respondents 1 and 2 herein challenging the notification of the appellant dated 24-9-1975.
2. Respondents 1 and 2, among others, were elected as Members of the Regulated Market Committee, Bhalki, constituted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the Act). The Deputy Commissioner, Bidar published a notification in the Official Gazette under Section 27 of the Act notifying the names of all the elected Members of the Market Committee on 7-8-1975. Thereafter, the appellant herein published a calendar of events on 5-9-1975 for election of the Chairman and the vice-Chairman of the Market Committee, and the election was fixed for 25-9-1975. Pursuant to the said calendar of events fixed, respondent No. 1 filed his nomination for the office of Chairman and respondent No. 2 filed his nomination for the office of Vice-chairman. But on 24-9-1975, one day before the date on which the election was due to take place, the appellant Tahsildar issued a notification cancelling the calendar of events for the purpose of holding elections to the offices of Chairman and Vice-chairman of the Market Committee on the ground that the Market Committee had not been duly constituted. The said notification was challenged before the learned Single judge who allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Market Committee had been duly constituted and, therefore, the Tahsildar was in error in the view be has taken that there was no duly constituted Market Committee. Aggrieved by the said order, the Tahsildar has preferred the above appeal.
3. We asked the learned High Court Government Advocate as to whether the Act has conferred any power on the Tahsildar to cancel the notification fixing the calendar of events for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman after the process of election is once started. He fairly conceded that there is no such provision, express or implied. His submission was that under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the Tahsildar who has got the power to issue a notification has necessarily the power to denotify. He was unable to support that contention with any authority in regard to election matters.
4. The general principle of law is that once the process of election is started, the same cannot be interrupted except by an order of Court. The result of the action of the appellant Tahsildar is to interrupt the pr6cess of election after the nominations had been filed and accepted. If the principle of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act can be availed of by Returning Officers, then it is likely to be seriously abused wherever the persons in authority find that their candidates are not likely to win or their nominations are not valid. As at present advised we are of the opinion that unless there is an express power conferred by the Statute, the Tahsildar has no power to cancel the notification once be has issued a calendar of events and pursuant to the same, nominations have been filed and accepted.
5. The learned Single judge, in our opinion, should have quashed the order of the Tahsildar on the ground that the order is ultra vires. Therefore, we reject this appeal.
6. Appeal rejected.