- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) SHORT but important question in volved in this petition is as to whether the Judge while giving judgment in an election petition filed under Rule 33 of the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and Settlement of Election Distputes) Rules, 1994 ( here in after referred to as the Rules) may stay operation of his own order for the period provided for filing appeal before High Court under Rule 47 of the Rules. Facts, in short, necessary to ap preciate the controversy are that respon dent No. 2 Jivendra Kumar was declared elected as Adhyaksha of the Zila Panchayfct of district Shahjahanpur on 22. 5. 1995. Challenging this election, Election Petition No. 1 of 1995 was filed by Jaidrath Singh and Vijai Pratap Singh. Aforesaid election peti tion has been decided finally by learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur by his judgment and order dated 26. 9. 1996, while delivering judgment, respondent No. 1, on the application of respondent to stay operation of the order dated 26. 9. 1996 for one month, passed the following order: - "counsel for the applicant-respondent No. 1 wants to file an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court. Provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable. The execution of the order and judg ment shall remain stayed for 25 days so that the appeal may be filed during this period. Sd/illegible 26. 9. 1996 IVtha-D. J. " Aggrieved by the aforesaid order this petition has been filed by the petitioner Satya Pal who was elected Upadhyaksha on 28. 6. 1996. His claim is that as the election has been set asideand there is vacancy in the office of Adhyaksha, petitioner being Upadhyaksha, is entitled to hold the office till an Adhyaksha is elected in accordance with law.
(3.) SHRI A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned Judge, he became Functus officio and could not pass the impugned order stay ing the operation of his own order for 25 days. There is nothing like inherent or im plied power to justify the impugned order. There is also no parallel provisions in Kshettra Samitis and Zila parishads Adhiniyam, 1961, like Section 116-B of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the order is wholly without authority of law. By the impugned order the right of petitioner to hold office of the Adhyaksha has been illegally curtailed. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance in the following cases: (1 ). Debi Saran v. Sub Divisional Of ficer, Kitcha Rudrapur, district Nainital and others reported in 1988 A. W. C. 1039. (2 ). Jagdish Prasad v. Sub Divisional Officer Domariaganj, district Basti and another reported in 1989 AWC 151 : 1990 R. D. 363. (3 ). Mahabir Singh v. State of U. P. and another reported in 1989 AWC 401.;