I. M. Quddusi, J. - (1.) SINCE common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals the same are being decided by a common judgment and order.
(2.) HEARD Dr. L. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri R. N. Gupta learned counsel for the respondents. This First Appeal From Order has been filed against stay order after decision of the election petition passed by the Judge, who has decided the election petition filed under Rule 43 of the U. P. Kshetriya Panchayats (Election of Pramukhs and Up-Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to "Rules"). The election petition was decided by the Judge under the said Rules on 10.2.2004, and thereafter on the application moved by one of the parties, the operation of the judgment and order dated 10.2.2004 was stayed into 25.2.2004 or till any orders are passed by the High Court, whichever is earlier. Sri R. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of these appeals.
(3.) IN the case of Komal Chand and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 MP 20 (V-53 CJ) (F/B), the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that neither the Registration Act nor the Stamp Act contains any provision giving to the registering officer any power to examine whether an instrument already registered was or was not duly stamped and to impound it. As soon as the registering officer registers a document presented to him for registration, the function in the performance of which the document was produced to him is over and he thereafter becomes functus officio having no power under Section 33 to impound the instrument. In the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishak and others, AIR 1955 SC 233 (Vol. 44, C.N.-40), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Courts have power under Article 226 to issue writs of certiorari for quashing the decisions of Election Tribunals, notwithstanding that they become functus officio after pronouncing the decisions. The writ of certiorari for quashing is directed against the record, and as a record can be brought up only through human agency, it is issued to the person or authority whose decision is to be reviewed. As it is the record of the decision that has to be removed by certiorari, the fact that the Tribunal has become 'functus officio' subsequent to the decision can have no effect on the jurisdiction of the Court to remove the record.;