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

1988 Supreme(All) 340

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.L. YADAV, J.
Devi Sharan - Appellant
Versus
Sub-Divisional Officer, Kichha, Rudrapur, Distt. Nainital - Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13125 of 1988
Decided on : Jul 20, 1988

Advocates appeared:
K.S. Chauhan, T.P. Singh

The court cannot add or subtract from a statute, and an order staying the oath-taking ceremony of an elected Pradhan without any legal basis is illegal.

Headnote:

ELECTION - PANCHAYAT RAJ - STAY OF OATH-TAKING CEREMONY OF ELECTED PRADHAN - JURISDICTION - U. P. PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1947 - SECTION 12-C - INTERPRETATION - NO PROVISION FOR GRANT OF INTERIM STAY - COURT CANNOT ADD OR SUBSTRACT FROM THE STATUTE - ORDER STAYING OATH-TAKING QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, elected as Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, challenged the order staying his oath-taking ceremony, passed by the Perganadhikari, on the ground that there was no provision for interim stay under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, which deals with election petitions, does not provide for the grant of interim stay during the pendency of the petition. The court further held that the Code of Civil Procedure, which applies to election petitions under Rule 25 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, does not confer upon the Prescribed Authority the powers to grant temporary injunctions.

Issues: 1. Whether the Perganadhikari had the jurisdiction to grant an interim stay of the oath-taking ceremony of the elected Pradhan? 2. Whether the provisions of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and the Code of Civil Procedure allow for the grant of interim stay in election petitions?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, and held that it does not provide for the grant of interim stay during the pendency of an election petition. 2. The court held that Rule 25 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, which provides for the application of the Code of Civil Procedure to election petitions, does not confer upon the Prescribed Authority the powers to grant temporary injunctions.

Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order staying the oath-taking ceremony of the elected Pradhan and directed the respondents to administer the oath and hand over the charge of office to the petitioner forthwith.

JUDGMENT

B.L. Yadav, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12-7-88 passed by the Perganadhikari, Kichcha, Nainital, directing that in the meanwhile the petitioner Devi Sharan may not be administered oath of office of the Pradhan.

2. The profile of the petitioner's case may be set out briefly. The petitioner was elected in the last general elections held on June 5, 1988. He was a candidate for the office of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Dhanpur-Vijaipur, Block Gederpur, District Nainital, along with respondent no. 4 Jagdish Singh. But on counting of ballot papers on 6th June, 1988 the petitioner was declared elected. An election petition has been filed by respondent no. 3, who filed an application for interim order with prayer that successful candidate, the petitioner, may be restrained from taking oath of office of Pradhan. The impugned order dated 12-7-88 was passed in favour of respondent no. 4 on the election petition.

Sri K. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order was without jurisdiction inasmuch as there is no provision either in the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act or under the Code of Civil Procedure that after declaration of result of the election of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha the successful candidate cannot take oath of the office of Pradhan. In other words, the result of the election of the office of Pradhan cannot be stayed in a democratic set up. Sri T. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 Sri Jagdish Singh, on the other hand, urged that under the circumstances of the case for a short while the oath was not to be administered to the petitioner and thereafter the election petition itself could be decided. As the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the trial of election petition in view of Rule 25 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Rules, hence temporary injunction can be granted under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and section 151 CPC.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Ex abundanti cautela, the statutory provisions of Section 12-C (1) to (8) of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (for short the Act), are set out : "12-C. Application for questioning the elections.-(1) The election of a person as Pradhan of a Gaon Sabha or as member of a Gaon Panchayat including the election of a person appointed as a Panch of the Nyaya Panchayat under section 43 shall not be called in question except by an application presented to such authority within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed on the ground that- (a) the election has not been a free election by reason that the corrupt practice of bribery or undue influence has extensively prevailed at the election, or (b) that the result of the election has been materially affected- (i) by the improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination; or (ii) by gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the rules framed thereunder. (2) The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices of bribery or undue influence for the purposes of this Act : (A) (1) Bribery, that is to say, any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or by any other person with the connivance of a candidate of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object directly or indirectly, of including- (a) a person to stand or not to stand as or to withdraw from being, a candidate at an election, or (b) an elector to vote, refrain from voting at an election; or as a reward to- (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn his candidature; or (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting. (B) (2). Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of a candidate or of any other person with the connivance of the candidate with the free exercise of any electoral right : Provided that without prejudice to the generality of
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top