B.L.Yadav - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is directed against the the order dated 22-7-88, rejecting the application of petitioner for grant of interim stay in election petition filed under section 12-C of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, (for short the Act), with the prayer that during the pendency of the election petition respondent no. 2 may not be given charge of the office of Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha Pikauria, Tehsil Domariaganj, District Basti.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the application for interim stay has been rejected by respondent no. 1 just by one word ' rejected ', without indicating reasons. Consequently the said order was arbitrary. He relied upon Section 94 of the CPC which is to the effect that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated the Court may, if it is so prescribed.........(e) make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner also made a reference to Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act and Section 12-C of the Act, and urged that the power to grant interim (temporary) stay was there and, consequently, the application for interim stay ought not to have been rejected, rather under the circumstances of the case a prima facie case has been made out as according to the petitioner he was earlier declared elected but later on respondent no 2 was declared elected at the time of counting of ballot papers, hence the interim stay ought to have been granted. The submissions are without any substance, inasmuch as under Rule 25 of the Rules framed under the Act the provisions are that the trial of an election petition may be held as nearly as may be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure. It means that the provisions of the Code have not been made applicable, but they have been made applicable only for certain purposes and that too as nearly as may be. In such matters the intendment of the legislature has to be ascertained. Section 12-C of the Act provides that once the revision is to be filed against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, in that case an application for interim stay can be moved, as is obvious by the provisions of Section 12-C (8) of the Act. The provision for grant of interim stay is there when Revision is filed. But the same is conspicuous by its absence while providing the procedure for trial of the election. In case the legislature wanted to have some provision for interim stay, the said provision could have been there. It is accordingly clear that the legislature never intended that the power of interim stay must be with the Sub-Divisional Officer trying the election petition. Section 94 of the Code provides that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may, if it is so prescribed, make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Court to be just and convenient. Such principles are applicable to the Code and that also in the event if the procedure has been prescribed for the grant of interim stay. In the instant case no such procedure has been prescribed for the grant of interim stay, nor the election petition is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The provisions of Section 94 of the Code accordingly would not apply as there is no procedure contemplated under Section 12-C read with Rule 25 for the trial of election petition to grant the interim stay. Consequently, the same could not have been granted. Even though the rejection of application for interim stay just with one word ' rejected ' was not very appropriate, but nevertheless, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed summarily. --- Petition dismissed.;