( 1 ) SHOULD the court pass an ex-parte ad-interim order staying the process of election of a Panchayat and thereby countermand the mandate of the people? Would this be in consonance with the basic principles of democracy ? these questions are at the centre of controversy required to be resolved in this petition.

( 2 ) THE respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 861 of 1985 in the Count of Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara and prayed that the Notification (Annexure A) dated 5/06/1985 issued by the Deputy Collector and Returning Officer of the Election of Tarsali Gram Panchayat the declared illegal and void and the proceedings taken by the respondents-original defendants be also declared illegal and void and they be restrained from holding the election and be directed to convert the Grant Panchayat into Nagar Panchayat and be further directed to declare the Gram Panchayat as Nagar Panchayat. The aforesaid suit was filed on 13/06/1985 On the same day the respondent-Plaintiff submitted an application Exh. 5 praying that the respendants be restrained from proceeding further with the election pursuant to the Notification dated 5/06/1985 The trial court directed the respondents to maintain status quo till further orders and made the notice returnable on 18/06/1985

( 3 ) THE aforesaid order passed by the trial court is challenged in this petition. It is an undisputed position that on 18/06/1985 or on any day thereafter till today further proceedings before the trial court have not taken place. This is so because almost all the staff members in District Court and subordinate courts of Vadodara district are on strike and therefore the normal functioning of courts is not possible. The employees are on strike on account of the agitation against roster system in the State Government services.

( 4 ) IT is also an undisputed fact that the election process as far as the election of Tarsali Gram Panchayat is concerned has started with the publication dated 5/06/1985 The nominations were to be filled in on 13/06/1985 On this very day the suit has been filed. It may be noted that the Notification declaring the programme of election was issued on 5/06/1985 It can be said that from that day onwards the process of election has started. On the date of the filing of the suit i. e. on 13/06/1985 nomination papers were to be accepted. In the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 64 the Supreme Court after referring to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951 and Halsburys Laws of England has stated in para 7 of the judgment:"the discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word election can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process". It is true that the Supreme Court has laid down the aforesaid principle in the context of the provisions of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act 1951 But these very principles have got to be applied to the elections to the local authorities also. This would be clear from para 16 of the Supreme Court judgment in the aforesaid case of N. P. Ponnuswami which is reproduced hereinbelow:" (1) Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and ali disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. (2) In conformity with this principle the scheme of the election law in this coumtry as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect t