JUDGMENT

Krishna S.Dixit, J. - Petitioner being the 3rd respondent in E.P.No.1/2019, is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the order dated 18.12.2019, a copy whereof is at Annexure-G, whereby the application in I.A.No.2 filed by the respondent-Election Petitioner under Section 24 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 r/w Section 151 of CPC, 1908, having been favoured, the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Hiriyur, has stayed the declaration dated 31.05.2019 which he has emerged as the returned candidate, in the subject municipal election.

2. After service of notice, the respondents having entered appearance through their counsel, resist the Writ Petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it is founded.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner inasmuch as there is no provision in the said Act, which empowers the Election Court to grant any interim relief, much less the one granted vide impugned order.

4. Section 21 provides for challenging a municipal election by presenting a petition within 15 days of declaration of electoral results; Sub-section (2) of this Section specifies the grounds of challenge; Sub-section (3) mentions who can be joined as parties to the petition; Sub-section(4) specifies how the petition should be structured; Section 22 enumerates the reliefs which an election petitioner can claim; Section 23 enlists the grounds for declaring election to be void; Section 24 prescribes the procedure for trying an election petition and it is nearly the one prescribed by CPC, 1908 for trying a suit; Section 25 specifies the kind of orders that can be made by the Election Tribunal after the conclusion of trials; Section 27 provides for appeal against the order of Tribunal; in none of these provisions, there is any indication that the Election Tribunal has power to grant any interim relief and more particularly, the stay of electoral results.

5. By now, it is well established that democracy and republicanism are the basic features of the Constitution; about half a century ago, this Court in SRI S NAGANGOUND VS. Y BASY REDDY,1969 ILR(Mys) 734, whilst invalidating a Munsiff's interim order made in an election petition restraining the returned candidate from functioning as a member of the village panchayat has observed as under:

"Normally in election matters, the verdict of the electorate has to be respected and given effect to until it is set aside on any one of the grounds on which the law permits it to be set aside."

The reasons for this view are not far to seek; if a returned candidate in an election is restrained from functioning merely because his election is in challenge, it would not augur well for the people of the electoral constituency; they lose a representative whom they have elected, and to that extent, there would be none in the municipal body to voice their concern; this is not a happy thing to happen in local self governance; added to this, ordinarily, the trial of election petitions is a long drawn exercise and at times such exercise consumes the full electoral tenure in question, the legislative mandate to accomplish the same in a time bound manner, notwithstanding; that is the reason why the legislature in its wisdom and consciously has not empowered the Election Tribunal to grant interim relief such as staying of election result or such other order which may have that effect, during the pendency of election disputes; this aspect having not been adverted to by the learned Judge of the Court below, the impugned order is infected with a legal infirmity, apparent on its face.

6. Although, the election petitions are tried by the Civil Courts, they are only statutory tribunals which ordinarily, do not have inherent powers in the absence of statutory enablement; this Court in Malleshappa Vs. Pavanasiddappa, (1979) 2 KarLJ 171 , has observed that a Mun