N.L.Ganguly - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order passed by learned Commissioner, Moradabad, dated 6-2-1992 by which the learned Commissioner was pleased to reject the application for stay. An order was passed by the Parganadhikari, Bihari, District Moradabad under section 95 (1) G of the Panchayat Raj Act, suspending the petitioner pending enquiry. The Parganadhikari aforesaid was satisfied that the petitioner as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha had illegally trespassed over the Gaon Sabha public land the matter was being enquired into in proceedings under section 122-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and [Land Reforms Act. The Parganadhikari stated in the order that till the petitioner who was occopying the office of Pradhan Continues to be in the office, It would not be possible for the proceedings to go smoothly against him. He considered that in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to remove the petitioner from bis office of Pradhan for the time being till the proceedings are pending.
(2.) AGAINST the aforesaid order of the Parganadhikari, the petitioner filed a revision before the learned Commissioner. The learned Commission while admitting the revision rejected the application for interim stay. The petitioner has come up before this Court against the said order of rejection of the application for interim orders. It is the general practice of this Court not to interefere in the interlocutory orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehementally submitted that the order of the authorities below are patently illegal and cannot be sustained. He submitted that the rights of the petitioner are still to be adjudicated upon and he has been illegally suspended. He said that the learned Commissioner acted illegally in not granting the interim stay the procedure adopted is novel and unwarranted. In support of bis submission, he cited Mool Chand Yadav v Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Rampur 1983 AWC 121. In this case, Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to observe that in cases in which civil consequence and pass interim orders during the pendency of the case before the apellate or revisional court The crux of the decision is that serious civil consequence must be involved in refusal of grant of interim order The learned counsel for the petitioner produced uncertified copy of judgment in CM writ Petition No Nil of 1989, M/s Ajai Rice Mills v. The State of U. P and others decided on 19-6-1989 by this Court (Hon. D. P. S. Chauhan, J.) in which this Court interefered in the order of refusal of grant of interim order and it was directed that the appeal itself may be decided by the authority concerned and in the meantime the order of the licensing authority was to remain suspended. Similarly, another uncertified copy of the judgment in C.M. Writ Petition No 739 of 1990, Mewa Lal Yadav v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others, decided on 7-2-1990, in which also Hon. Anshuman Singh, J. of this Court directed that the revision itself before the learned Commissioner concerned may be decided within one month and in the meantime the order impugned In revision should remain suspended Another uncertified copy of the judgment in CM. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1991, Indra Dev Dobhal v. Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri, decided on 15-3-1991 in which also this Court was pleased to stay the operation of orders impugned before the learned Commissioner concerned in revision while the disciplinary proceedings were going on against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner after placing the aforesaid decisions submitted that there is error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned Commissioner impugned in this petition and this Court should interfere in the same and grant an interim stay order during the pendency of the petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State, I am not inclined to interefere and pass inrerim order as prayed. I am of the opinion that each case has to be decided on its own facts. The Supreme Court judgment (supra) clearly lays down that if some civil rights are interfered with and parties' interest is jeopardised, only then the Court should interfere. The Supreme Court has not ruled that in each and every rase of revision or appeal in such cases, the grant of interim orders pending revision or appeal is mandatory. It is the discretionary jurisdiction which has to be exercised judiciouly in view of the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case the proceedings are going on against the petitioner and the learned Parganadhikani concerned in the order suspending the petitioner has stated categorically that if the petitioner continues in office of pradhan, it would not be possible to conduct the proceedings and complete if at an early date and conveniently. It is not unknonw that in the village, the Pradhan generally wield influence over the people and it is very likely that they may exercise under influence and pressure on the witnesses in the proceedings Since the discretition was not exercised by the learned Commissioner and, in my opinion, rightly so, I am not satisfied that there is any error of law or jurisdiction in the order impugned. Therefore, I decline to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;