Mallesheppa vs Revanasiddappa and Others

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20th January 1979 passed by the Additional Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Bhadravathi, in Election Misc. 2 of 1979. The learned Munsiff has passed an order of temporary injunction on I.A.I., restraining the petitioner from taking charge of the office of the Chairman of the Tanigere village Group Panchayat till the disposal of the main election petition. The first respondent herein, has challenged the election of the petitioner as a Chairman of the Tanigere village Panchayat before the Additional Munsiff, Bhadravathi. In the said election petition, he filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from taking charge as the Chairman of the Tanigere Village Group Panchayat.

The contention of Shri K. Subba Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the learned Munsiff has exceeded, the jurisdiction in issuing the order of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from functioning as Chairman of the Village Group Panchayat, quashed. The fact that the ejection of the petitioner as the Chairman of Tanigere therefore the order passed by the learned Munsiff is liable to be quashed. The fact that the election of the petitioner as the chairman of the village panchayat has been challenged and that there is a prima facie case in favour of the election petitioner, will not, in any way entitle the Court to grant an order of temporary injunction preventing the petitioner from assuming the office. This Court, in the case of Patreppa Gurappa Sattigeri v. The President, Bailhongal, CRP. 113/62 dt. 15-3-62, has held as follows:

"Generally temporary injunction orders preventing functioning of elected bodies are not issued by Courts since by issue of such an order the work of a statutory body is likely to be paralysed. The several decisions to which reference has been made by the learned District Judge in the course of his order make it abundantly clear that the courts should be guided by the balance of justice, and convenience and the occasions must be few on which it will be more just and convenient to hold up the election or the administration of newly elected bodies, more or less indefinitely, whilst one or more defeated candidates file election petitions."

It was contended on behalf of the first respondent that the Munsiff functioning under the Karnataka Village Panchayat and Local Boards Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enjoys the powers of the Civil Court under Rule 18 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). Rule 18 of the Rules, is as follows:

"Upon receipt of such a petition, the Munsiff shall, after such enquiry as he deems necessary, pass an order confirming or amending the declared result of the election or setting aside the election. In conducting such enquiry the Munsiff shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as far as possible. He may also award costs in such manner as he deems fit and such costs shall be recoverable as if they had been awarded in a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908). The decision of the Munsiff shall be final. If the Munsiff sets aside the election of the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman, he shall, forthwith communicate the fact by sending a copy of his order to the Deputy Commissioner of the District who shall take necessary steps for holding a fresh election."

From the reading of the aforesaid Rule 18 it is clear that the Munsiff, while conducting an enquiry in pursuance of the election petition, in other words, while trying an election petition, shall follow the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Rule does not empower the Munsiff to excercise the power of granting am order of temporary injunction. The Munsiff functioning under the Act is not a Court but is a ''persona designata'' and as such, he does not enjoy all the powers of the Civil Court. Rule 18 relates to, the trial of the election petition and does not relate to the passing of an interim order of the nature in question as such an order cannot be said to form part of the trial of the election petition inasmuch as such an order is not necessary for conducting the trial of the election petition. That being so, the contention of the first respondent that by reason of the provisions contained in Rule 18 of the Rules, the Munsiff had the jurisdiction to pass the order of temporary injunction, cannot be accepted. Consequently the order passed by the Munsiff cannot at all be sustained, and the same is hereby quashed.

It was submitted on behalf of the first respondent that prima facie, what was done by the Election Officer, was clearly without jurisdiction; therefore, the Munsiff be directed to dispose of the election petition expeditiously. Accordingly, the Munsiff is directed to dispose of the election petition itself expeditiously.

Shri B.B. Mandappa, the learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, within two weeks.