SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Raj) 2951

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
S.N.Jha, Mohammad Rafiq, JJ.
Nirbhay SIngh - Appellant
Versus
Mahesh Singh and another - Respondent
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 427 of 2006.
Decided On : 2-06-2006

Advocates:
For the Appellant:S.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Dinesh Yadav, Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 Art. 243 Scope – In the case, the High court allowed the appeal and held by an interim order that the setting aside of Sarpanch election by the tribunal can’t be nullified and also held that when election process has started then it is not proper for the court to interfere in that by passing the stay order.

JUDGMENT

1. - This special appeal is directed against an interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.4.2006 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9964/2005 staying operation of the order of the Election Tribunal dated 2.12.2005. Respondent No. 1 Mahesh Singh was elected as Sarpanch of Basal Panchayat in district Dholpur. The appellant challenged the election on the ground that he had more than two children and, therefore, in terms of section 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 he was not eligible to seek election. The Election Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record led by the parties upheld the case of the appellant and holding the respondent to be ineligible, set aside the election. As a consequence of setting aside of the election, the State Election Commission has notified fresh election and the election process has commenced.

2. After hearing counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 who has appeared on his own, we are of the view that the order is not in accordance with law for more than one reason. Firstly, by an interim order, effect of setting aside of election cannot be nullified. Secondly, the election process having commenced, the order of stay amounts to inference with the election process which is not permissible in view of the provisions of Article 243-0 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, it is well settled that the courts should refrain from granting interim order if the effect of interim order is granting the main relief itself. In these premises, we are constrained to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. The impugned order dated 17.4.2006 is accordingly set aside and the appeal is thus allowed.Hearing of the writ petition may be expedited.Appeal allowed - Order of single judge set aside.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top