R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.) A very short question of law that arises for consideration in this petition filed by an elected Block Pramukh, even though by draw of lots as both petitioner and opposite party had polled equal number of votes, is if the Election Tribunal in exercise of its powers under U. P. Kshetriya Samities (Election of Block Pramukhs and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1962 could have granted any injunction or stay or even direction to maintain status quo resulting in non administration of oath of office to petitioner in an Election petition presented under rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules.
(2.) FOR this purpose it is necessary to extract relevant rule of Chapter IV of the rules which deal with disputes regarding election of Pramukh and Up Pramukh, Rules 35, 36 and 37 deal with time and manner of presentation of petition, its form etc. and relief. The procedure is provided by Rule 40, Sub-rule (1) of which reads as under :- "Except so far as provided by the Act or in these Rules, the procedure provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in regard to suits, shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the Act or any provisions of these Rules and it can be made applicable, be followed in the hearing of the election petitions" From the express language used in rule, it is abundantly clear that the entire provisions of civil Procedure Code have not been applied. What has been applied is the procedure of suit provided in the Code to the hearing of the petition to the extent it is not inconsistent with any provisions in the Act and Rules. Since Civil Procedure Code applies in limited form, the provisions for grant of injunction or stay as such cannot be applied. Nor the provisions could be invoked as part of procedure of hearing the suit as Order XVIII dealing with hearing of suit and examination of witnesses does not mention the power to grant injunction or stay. Therefore, on the language of rule 40 the provision of injunction cannot apply. Even the exceptions which have been carved out by proviso to sub-rule I does not grant any power to grant injunction or stay. There is thus on provision express or implied which empowers a tribunal under rules to grant any stay, order. The controversy does not appear to be res-integra as well Analogous provisions in Representation of Peoples Act and U. P. Panchayat Raj Act have been construed in Mallappa Bassappa v. Basavery Appu, AIR 1958 SC 698, and Rameshwar Dayal v. S. D. O, AIR 1963 All 518 and it has been consistently held, that an election tribunal is not clothed with power to grant stay or injunction by application of provision of hearing of suit in the Civil Procedure Code to hearing of election petition. Recently, it has been reiterated in Devi Sharan v. S. D. O., 1988 AWC 1039. Since the Act is in para materia the construction under Representation of Peoples Act and Panchayat Raj 'has also to be held to apply with equal force to the Kshetriya Samities Act. Further law as enunciated having held the field for more than twenty years now and it having not been amended it should be taken as settled that in absence of any provision in the Statute an election tribunal under the Statute does not possess any power to grant injunction or stay of election.
(3.) IN the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. And the order dated 22nd October, 1988 is quashed. But there shall be no order as to costs.;