Elected members' voting rights are protected under statutory law, and disqualification claims cannot impede voting during ongoing election disputes.

1. This petition demonstrates the manner in which some of the Panchayats are working under the Panchayats Act.

2. The dispute between the parties arises out of an election to the Village Panchayat of Wadshingi, taluq Jalgaon, which took place on May 26, 1966. The result of the election were declared on the next day. At this election petitioners 1 to 4 and respondents 1 to 5 were elected. The meeting for the election of the Sarpanch of this Panchayat was fixed originally for July 5, 1966, and then adjourned to July 18, 1966. In the meantime, respondents 6 and 7 filed two election petitions against petitioners 1 and 2 on June 10, 1966, Respondent No. 1 was the Sarpanch elected to the prior Panchayat. He then made an application under S.16 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act 1958, to the Collector for disqualifying the petitioners 1 and 2 on the ground that they were disqualified for being elected as members of the Panchayat because petitioner no. 1 was below the age of 25 and petitioner no. 2 was below the age of 21 years. The Collector rejected this application on July 8, 1966, Prior to this, before the first date for election of the Sarpanch, respondent no. 1 had made an application to the Collector for postponing the election on the ground that an election petition was pending. The Collector rejected this application. Thereafter, respondents 6 and 7 presented an application for an interim injunction to the Civil Judge before whom the election petition was pending, praying that petitioners 1 and 2 be restrained by an injunction from voting at the ensuing meeting for election of the Sarpanch, adjourned to July 18, 1966. The application was made on July 14, 1966 and the interim injunction was granted by the learned Judge on July 15, 1966, Surprisingly enough, this injunction was not served right until one hour before the meeting and the petitioners were effectively prevented from voting at the election. The petitioners seek to challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge and further consequential order to quash the election of respondent No. 1 as Sarpanch and of respondent no. 3 as Upasarpanch of the Village Panchayat. It appears that the meeting which was scheduled to take place on July 18, 1966, had to be adjourned to July 19, 1966. Though the injunction related to the meeting of July 18, petitioners 1 and 2 were not allowed to vote at the meeting which actually took place on July 19, 1966, by the presiding officer.

3. Mr. Manohar contends that the Civil Judge acting under the provisions of S. 15 of the said Act acts as a persona designata and therefore he has no power to issue an interim injunction restraining any of the elected members from voting at the election of the Sarpanch. It has been held that the Civil Judge acting under S.15 is not a Court but merely a persona designata. It is not necessary, however, to decide whether or not he has got all the powers of a Civil Court while holding an enquiry and whether the powers of granting interim injunction are powers which are exercisable during the enquiry by him. For the purposes of this matter we will assume that the Civil Judge has by reason of S.15 (2) all the powers of a Civil Court.

4. A Civil Court can grant injunction only under O.39, R.1 and R.2, Evidently R.1 has no application, R.2 applies only if conditions thereof are satisfied.
The R.2 so far as relevant reads;
"In any suit (1) for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or (2) other injury of any kind .. .. apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of