The Prescribed Authority under Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, does not have the power to grant interim orders, as such power is not expressly conferred by the Act or the Rules.

The respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 12-C of. the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, which was registered as Election Petition No. 6 of 1995. In the said case the respondent No. 2 filed on application on 23-5-1995 praying for calling for the record of the election from the Election Office and for some other interim order restraining the petitioner from taking over charge as Pradhan. By an order dated 15- 12-1995 the said application was allowed and the record of the impugned election were called for. It is against this order the petitioner has moved the present writ petition.

2. Sri M. C. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner con tends that in the present case neither issues have been framed nor evidence had been led. There was no material available before the court to form an opinion as to the existence of the conditions as enumerated in the case of Ram Adhar Singh v. Sub-Divisional Officer, 1985 UPLBEC 317. Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained. He also relied on various decisions, which will be referred to shortly hereinafter, in support of his contention is two-fold; first, that in absence of any material and in absence of the conditions laid down in Ram Adhar Singhs case the court cannot pass any order for calling for the record and direction for recounting. Secondly, that while deciding the petition under Section 12-C of the said Act the Court does not have any power to grant any interim order. Whereas by allowing the said application dated 23- 5-1995 the court had allowed the prayer for restraining the petitioner from taking over charge as Pradhan and from carrying on the activities of Pradhan. Therefore, such an order cannot be sustained.

3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the other hand contends that there are sufficient material to satisfy the court that the conditions laid down in the case of Ram Adhar Singh (supra) were in existence and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the said order for calling for the records of election from the Election Office. Drawig my attention to the said order while translating the same at the Bar Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, submits that the order is perfectly legal and valid since the order records satisfaction and existence of the material for arriving at such con clusion. He further contends that the petitioner had won the election after there was tie by a margin o: one vote which was allotted to him in compliance of Rule 108 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj (Election of Members, Pradhans etc.) Rules, 1994. Accord ing to him in such a situation when 74 votes polled by the petitioner was cancelled and 116 votes polled by the respondent No. 2 was cancelled it was more necessary, by reason of the fact in itself to presume that there might be reason due to which the records are required to be inspected. He also drew my attention in support of his contention to the decision in Ram Adhar Singhs case (supra ). He further relied on certain other decisions, which will be referred to shortly, hereinafter.

4. From the translation made at the Bar, translating the prayer made in the said application dated 23-5- 1995, it appears that there was comhind prayer for calling for the record of the election and for restraining the petitioner from taking over charge of the Office of Pradhan and carrying on the activity of Pradhan. Therefore, the moment by the order dated 15-12-1995, as I understand from the translation made at the Bar, the application is allowed, it allows the entire prayer made in the said application dated 23-5-1995. 1 further understand that in the said order the court had called for the record of election.

5. Section 12-C in itself does not make any provision by which the authority deciding the election petition, can derive jurisdiction to grant interim order, staying the result or the effect of the election. Neither the Rules have prescr