B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated July 12, 1988 passed by the Parganadhikari, Michcha, Nainital, directing that in the meanwhile the petitioner Devi Sharan may not be administered oath of office of the Pradhan. 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 Danpur -Vijaipur, Block Gederpur, District Nainital, alongwith respondent No. 4 Jagdish Singh. But on counting of ballot papers on June 6, 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 July 7, 1988 was passed in favour of respondent No. 4 on the election petition.
(2.) 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 C.P.C. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Fx abundanti cautela, the statutory provisions of Section 12C(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 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 the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who - - (i) threatens any candidate, or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or any elector is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and excommunication or expulsion from any caste or community, or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause. (3) The application under sub -section (1) may be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Explanation - -Any person who filed a nomination paper at the election whether such nomination paper was accepted or rejected, shall be deemed to be a candidate at the election. (4) The authority to whom the application under sub -section (1) is made shall, in the manner of - - (i) hearing of an application and the procedure to be followed at such hearing, (ii) setting aside the election or declaring the election to be void or declaring the applicant to be duly elected or any other relief that may be granted to the petitioner, have such powers and authority as may be prescribed. (5) Without any prejudice to the generality of the powers to be prescribed under sub -section (4) the rules may provide for the summary hearing and disposal of an application under sub -section (1). (6) Any party aggrieved by an order of the Prescribed Authority upon an application under sub -section (1) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, apply to the District Judge for revision of such order on any one or more or the following grounds, namely: (a) that the Prescribed Authority has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) that the Prescribed Authority has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; (c) that the Prescribed Authority has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. (7) The District Judge may dispose of the application for revision himself or may assign it for disposal to any Additional District Judge, Civil Judge or Additional Civil Judge under his administrative control and may recall it from any such officer or transfer it to any other such officer. (8) The revising authority mentioned in sub -section (7) shall follow such procedure as may be prescribed, and may confirm vary, or rescind the order of the Prescribed Authority or remand the case to the Prescribed Authority for re -hearing and pending its decision pass such interim orders as may appear to it to be just and convenient.
(3.) IT is the elementary rule of interpretation of statutes that to interpret a particular provision it is necessary to ascertain the intention of the legislature. Even part of the statute and the section has to be read together. In other words the interpretation of statutes has to be textual and also contextual. It is said that passing from the external aspects of the statutes to its contents the construction is to be made of all the parts together and not of one part only by itself. See Attorney General v. Browa, (1920) 1 K.B. 773.;