R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

( 2 ) SHORT but important question involved in this petition is as to whether the Judge while giving judgment in an election petitioner filed under Rule 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Zile Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) may stay operation of his own order for the period provided for filing appeal before High Court under Rule 47 of the Rules. 2-A. Facts, in short, necessary to appreciate the controversy are that respondent No. 2 Jivendra kumar was declared elected as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayat of district Shahjahanpur on 22-5-1995. Challeng ing this election. Election Petition No. 1 of 1995 was filed by Jaidrath singh and Vijai Pratap Singh. Aforesaid Election Petition has been decided finally by learned ivth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by his judgment and order dated 26-9-1996, while delivering judgment respondent No. 1, on the application of respondent to stay operation of the order dated 26-9-1996 for one month, passed the following order :

"counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 1 wants to file an appeal in the Honble High Court. Provisions of C. P. C. are applicable. The execution of the order and judgment shall remain stayed for 25 days so that the appeal may be filed during this period. Sd/- Illegible 26-9-1996 ivth A. D. J. "

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order this petition has been filed by the petitioner Satya Pal who was elected Upadhyaksha on 28-6-1996. His claim is that as the election has been set aside, and there is vacancy in the office of Adhyaksh, petitioner being Upadhyaksha, is entitled to hold the office till an Adhyaksha is elected in accordance with law.

( 4 ) SHRI A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned Judge, he became functus officio and could not pass the impugned order staying the operation of his own order for 25 days. There is nothing like inherent or implied power to justify the impugned order. There is also no parallel provision in kshetra Samitis and Zila Parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, like Section 116-B of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the order is wholly without authority of law. By the impugned order the right of petitioner to hold office of the Adhyaksha has been illegally curtailed.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has placed reliance in the follow ing cases :1, debi Saran v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kitcha Rudrapur, district Nainital and Ors. reported in 1988 AWC 1039. 2 Jagdish Prasad v. Sub-Divisional Officer Domariaganj, district Basti and Anr. reported in 1989 awc 151 : 1990 RD 363. 3. Mahabir Singh v. State of U. P. and Anr. , reported in 1989 AWC 401.

( 6 ) LEARNED standing counsel appearing for the State submitted that under the provisions of the act and the Rules, the learned Judge had power to stay operation of his judgment for a short period and there is nothing in the Act or the Rules on which basis it may be said that such power could not be exercised.

( 7 ) I have considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and have also perused to cases relied in support thereof. From perusal of the aforesaid three judgment of this Court, it is clear that the legal position expressed therein was regarding the power of the prescribed authority/sub-divisional officer to grant interim order while hearing an election petition Under section 12-C of Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act. In all the judgments it has been said that no procedure has been prescribed either in Section 12-C of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act or under Rule 25 framed thereunder and in absence of any such procedure, it cannot be inferred that the sub-Divisional Officer/prescribed Authority hearing the election petition may have the power to grant interim order depriving the pradhan whose election was in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document