IMPORTANT POINTS
Inherent and statutory powers to stay/restrain the execution of the action impugned in the lis during pendency of the lis are always available to the courts.
An order contrary to settled principles of law or perverse calls for interference by Supreme Court irrespective of nature of the order whether it is interim or final.

Headnote:(a) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rules 1and 2, and Order XLI Rule 5 – Inherent and statutory powers to stay/restrain the execution of the action impugned in the lis during pendency of the lis – Always available to the courts – Order of disqualification – Suspension by court by way of interim order pending adjudication – Division Bench observing that so long as the order of disqualification was not set aside, it remained operative – Not correct – Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 – Section 22-A – Writ Court suspending Division Bench failing to appreciate that respondents had to allow appellant to function as Chairman of ZPP in view of writ court orders – Illustration given by Division Bench not apposite. (Para 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 55)
       AIR 1967 SC 1386 – Relied upon
       (b) Andhra Pradesh Conduct of Election of Member (Co-opted), President and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad and Members (Co-opted), Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zila Parishad Rules, 2006 – Rule 21 and 22 – Legality of whip issued by TDP – Question not decided in view of pendency of the election petition. (Para 56)
       (c) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Appeal against interim orders – An order contrary to settled principles of law or perverse – Calls for interference by Supreme Court irrespective of nature of the order. (Para 58)
       Facts of the case:
       This case relates to election of chairperson of Zila Parishad and has a checkered litigation history.
       The appellant, allegedly, got elected to the post of chairperson by defying party whip and hence was dislodged and the vice chairperson was directed to function as chairperson till further orders.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeal allowed. SLPs disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. –

In S.L.P.(c)Nos. 36764/2014 & 36773/2014

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are filed against the common interim order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.M.P. No. 3416 of 2014 in W.A. No.1386 of 2014 and W.A.M.P. No. 3418 of 2014 in W.A. No.1388 of 2014 whereby while disposing of the applications filed in these appeals, the High Court directed the Vice-Chairperson of Zilla Praja Parishad (in short “ZPP”), Prakasam District, ongole to discharge the functions of the Chairperson for the office of Zilla Praja Parishad, Prakasam District, Ongole until further orders.

3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts which were taken from the record of the S.L.Ps.

4. The appellant is the duly elected member of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituency (in short “ZPTC”) of Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District. He had contested this election as a candidate of Telugu Desam Party (in short “TDP”) for Prakasam District, Ongole. On 26.06.2014, the Election Commission for the State of Andhra Pradesh (in short “the State Election Commission”)-respondent No.3 herein issued orders directing various District Collectors including the District Collector-cum-Presiding Officer, Prakasam District (Respondent No.2 herein) to conduct election to the office of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the Zilla Praja Parishads (in short ‘ZPP’) on 05.07.2014.

5. However, the elections to the offices of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of ZPP, Prakasam District could not be held on the said date, i.e. 05.07.2014, and were accordingly postponed to a later date.

6. On 07.07.2014, an order was issued by the District Collector, Prakasam District (respondent No.4 herein) requesting the State Election Commission (respondent No.3 herein) to hold the election on 13.07.2014.

7. On 09.07.2014, the State President of the TDP addressed a letter to the State Election Commission (respondent No.3) informing that one Shri Bonda Uma Maheswara Rao, General Secretary of the TDP, is authorized to issue Form-A and Form-B as prescribed in Rule 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Conduct of Election of Member (Co-opted), President and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad and Members (Co-opted), Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zila Parishad Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “The Rules”) and is also authorized to issue the appointment of whip for the said elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Shri Bonda Uma Maheswara Rao then issued Form-A dated 10.07.2014 authorizing one Shri D. Janardhana Rao, the District President of the Prakasam District TDP to issue Form-B to the candidates set up by the TDP in the aforesaid election insofar as ZPP, Prakasam district was concerned and on the same day he also informed the same to the District Collector-cum-Presiding Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole.

8. On 12.07.2014, Shri D. Janardhana Rao informed the District Collector-cum-Presiding Officer (respondent No.2) that Shri Tulluri Venkata Narasimham (respondent No.1) has been appointed as whip on behalf of the TDP in relation to the election to the office of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of ZPP, of Prakasam District. Shri Tulluri Venkata Narasimham (Respondent No.1) then issued a whip on 12.07.2014 directing all the ZPTC members belonging to the TDP to vote in favour of Shri Manne Ravindra for the office of Chairperson. On the next day, i.e. 13.07.2014, respondent No.1 issued another whip directing all the TDP members of the ZPTC to vote in favour of Smt. P. Koteswaramma for the office of Vice-Chairperson.

9. According to the appellant, when the whip was issued, the appellant was not present in Ongole but was at Hyderabad from 07.07.2014 to 12.07.2014. It was for this reason, the appellant alleged that he neither received nor served with the copy of two whips which were alle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2015 Supreme(SC) 869

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis