JUDGMENT - (1) This petition demonstrates the manner in which some of the Panchayats are working under the Panchayats Act.

(2) The dispute between the parties arises out of an election to the village Panchayat of wadshingi, taluq Jalgaon, which took place on May 25, 1966. The result of the election were declared on the next day. At this election petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 5 were elected. The meeting for the election to the Sarpanch of this Panchayat was fixed originally for July 5, 1966, and then adjourned to July 18, 1966. In the meantime, respondents 6 and 7 filed two election petitions against petitioners 1 and 2 on June 10, 1966. Respondent No. 1 was the Sarpanch elected to the prior Panchayat. He then made an application under section 16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958, to the Collector for disqualifying the petitioners 1 and 2 on the ground that they were disqualified for being elected as members of the Panchayat because petitioner no. 1 was below the age of 25 and petitioner no. 2 was below the age of 21 years. The Collector rejected this application on July 8, 1966. Prior to this, before the first date for election of the Sarpanch, respondent no 1 had made an application to the Collector for postponing the election on the ground that an election petition was pending. The Collector rejected this application. Thereafter, respondents 6 and 7 presented an application for an interm injunction to the Civil Judge before whom the election petition was pending, praying that petitioners 1 and 2 be restrained by an injunction from voting at the ensuing meeting for election of the Sarapanch, adjourned to July 18, 1966. The application was made on July 14, 1966 and the intrim injunction was granted by the learned Judge on July 15, 1966. Surprisingly enough, this injunction was not served right until one hour before the meeting and the petitioners were effectively prevented from voting at the election. The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge further consequential order to quash the election of respondent No, 1 as Sarpanch and of respondent no. 3 as Upasarpanch of the Village Panchayat . It appears that the meeting which was scheduled to take place on July 18, 1966, had to be adjourned to July 19, 1966. Though the injunction related to the meeting of July 18, petitioners 1 and 2 were not allowed to vote at the meeting which actually took place on July 19, 1966, by the presiding officer.

(3) Mr. Manohar contends that the Civil Judge acting under the provisions of S. 15 of the said Act acts as a persona designata and therefore he has no power to issue an interm injunction restraining any of the elected members from voting at the election of the Sarpanch. It has been held that the Civil Judge acting under Section 15 is not a Court but merely a persona designata. It is not necessary, however, to decide whether or not he has got all the powers of a Civil Court while holding an enquiry and whether the powers of granting interim injunction are powers which are exercisable during the enquiry by him. For the purposes of this matter we will assume that the Civil Judge has by reason of section 15 (2) all the powers of a Civil Court.

(4) A Civil Court can grant injunction only under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2. Evidently rule 1 has no application. Rule 2 applies only if conditions thereof are satisfied.

The rule 2 so far as relevant reads;

"In any suit (1) for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or (2) other injury of any kind .. .. .. apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of."

We may assume that though election petition is not a suit, it may even be treated as suit. The first party cannot apply for there is no question of a contract. In order to bring the case within the second part the applicant must show some legal injury of some kind.

(5) In order to prove legal injury the appli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document