While challenging the legality of order dated 10.08.2015 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gudibande, whereby, the petitioner has been prohibited from exercising his power as the President of Vatadahosahalli Gram Panchayath, the petitioner has raised an interesting question with regard to the interpretation of Rule 14 of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayath) Rules, 1995 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Rules of 1995’).

2. Before dealing with the legal contentions raised with regard to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1995, the factual canvass of this case needs to be unfurled.

The elections for the Gram Panchayath, namely Vatadahosahalli Gram Panchayath, were held on 2.6.2015, under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, 1993 (‘The Act’, for short). The results were declared on 05.06.2015; twenty members were elected to the said Gram Panchayath. Aggrieved by the election of Mrs. Gowramma as member of the Gram Panchayat, one Mrs. Nagalakshmamma filed an election petition, namely Misc. Election Petition No.2/2015 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gudibande. Along with the election petition, Mrs.Nagalakshmamma also filed an interim application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for restraining Mrs. Gowramma from discharging her duties as an elected Member of the Gram Panchayath. By order dated 07.07.2015 the said interim application was allowed. Consequently, Mrs. Gowramma was restrained from exercising any of the rights bestowed upon a member till the disposal of election petition.

3. Meanwhile, the Returning Officer fixed the election for the post of President and Vice President on 08.07.2015. The election was duly held; the petitioner was elected as the President and the respondent no.2, before this court, namely Mrs. Kavitha was elected as the Vice President. However, as Mrs. Kavitha was aggrieved by the petitioner’s election to the post of President, she, too, filed an election petition, namely Misc. Election Petition No.3/2015 challenging the petitioner’s election to the post of President. The said election petition was also filed before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gudibande. Along with her election petition, she also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 CPC, seeking temporary injunction. By order dated 10.08.2015, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Gudibande allowed the temporary injunction application; the learned Civil Judge has prohibited the petitioner from discharging her statutory functions as the President of the Gram Panchayath. Hence, this petition before this court.

4. Mr.Nanjunda Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this court:

Firstly, Section 15 and Section 45 (2) of the Act deal with the filing of election petition. However, while Section 15 of the Act deals with filing of an election petition challenging the election of a Member, Section 45 of the Act, in general, deals with the procedure for election of President and Vice-President, Section 45 (2) of the Act deals specifically deals with “any dispute relating to the validity of the election to the post of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha”. Thus, Section 15 and Section 45 (2) of the Act operate in two different fields.

Secondly, under Section 45 (2) of the Act, a dispute relating to the validity of election to the post of President has to be decided by the “Prescribed Judicial Officer”. However, as the Act does not prescribe “a Judicial Officer”, it is the Rules of 1995 that prescribe the “Judicial Officer”.

Thirdly, according to Rule 14 of the Rules of 1995, the election petition challenging the election of President or Vice-President should be filed before “the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)” and not before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). But, in the present case, the election petition had been filed before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.). Hence, under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1995, the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) does not have the