( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been made by three persons, viz. , Ram Raj, Ram Prasad and Jot Narain. The three applicants were arrayed as accused persons in a complaint filed by one Smt. Jagdei under Sections 323, 447 and 506 of the indian Penal Code before the Nyaya Panchayat, Naubasta, district Gonda. During the pendency of this complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat the three applicants made an application under section 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gonda, for the transfer of the case from the said Panchayat. On the 3rd of June, 1957, the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Gonda passed a stay order directing that proceedings in the Nyaya Panchayat should be stayed. The stay order has not been filed by any of the parties in these proceedings. It is, however, agreed before us that such a stay order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, gonda. The petitioners case is that on the same date i. e. , the 3rd of June, 1957, they sent a copy of this order to the Nyaya Panchayat, Naubasta, by registered post. This intimation was received by the nyaya Panchayat on the 7th of June, 1957. One day previous to the receipt of this intimation, i. e. , on the 6th of June, 1957, however, the Nyaya Panchayat had already passed judgment in the case convicting the three applicants under Sections 323, 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 20/- each on the first two counts and Rs. 10/- on the third count. The applicants filed a revision petition against the said order before the Sub-Divisional magistrate, Tarabganj, Gonda, under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act. The order of the nyaya Panchayat was modified by the revisional authority. The conviction of the applicants under Sections 447 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside in revision, but their convictions under Section 423 of I. P. C. and the fine imposed on them thereunder was maintained. Thereafter the three applicants filed the present application under Article 227 of the constitution oi India praying that the order passed in the case by the Nyaya Panchayat on the 6th of June, 1957, and that passed in revision by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 19th of november, 1957, might be quashed.

( 2 ) BEFORE us the sole contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicants is that as soon as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had passed an order of stay in the case on the 3rd of June, 1957, the Nyaya Panchayat lost all jurisdiction to proceed with the case and that consequently the final order convicting the applicants passed by the Nyaya Panchayat on the 6th of June, 1957, was bad in law and void. On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite parties it is argued that the order of stay had not been communicated to the Nyaya Panchayat till the 7th of June, 1957 and that as the Nyaya Panchayat was not aware or the stay order on the 6th of June, 1957, it cannot be said that the order passed by it on that date was ultra vires, null and void.

( 3 ) THIS matter was heard by a single Judge of this Court. It, was, however, referred to a Division bench, as there appeared to be a conflict of decisions on this point.

( 4 ) ON behalf of the applicants the learned Counsel has relied on a single Judge decision oi this court reported in Ram Samujh v. State, AIR 1962 All 80. In this case it was held as follows : " a stay order should be deemed to take effect as soon as it is passed, quite irrespective of whether it is communicated or not. Injunctions, which are addressed to individual litigants, require to be communicated to the persons concerned before they can operate, for it would obviously be unfair to expect a person to obey an order of which he is unaware. But stay orders are meant for the Court, not for the litigants, and no unfairness is involved in their being treated as immediately effective, without communication to the Court concerned. If the Co