LexEDARA HARIBABU versus TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 773 EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 7115 of2015) SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] A B Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: s. 22-A - c Respondent no. 1 appointed as whip on behalf of TOP in respect to election to the office of Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson of ZPP - Respondent no. 1 then issued a whip. directing all ZPTC members beionging to TOP to vote in favour of one 'M' for office of Chairperson and one 'P' for office D of Vice-Chairperson of ZPP - Election was conducted and appellant contested election as independent candidate and cast his vote in his own favour-Appellant was then elected as Chairperson defeating the candidate proposed by TDP- Comp/aint by respondent no. 1 against appellant before E District Collector alleging that he violated the whips issued by TOP - District Collector disqualified the appellant as member of ZPTC and directed him to vacate the office of Chairperson - CEO directed Vice-Chairperson to temporarily take over charge of the office of Cfwirperson until a new F Chairperson is duly elected - High Court suspended the order of CEO - By interim order, Division Bench directed Vice-Chairperson to discharge the functions of the Chairperson until further orders and further restrained the respondents from filling up the vacancy of Chairperson and G a/so. directed District Judge to decide the pending election petitions within 3 months - Propriety of interim order- Held: The impugned order of the Division Bench in directing removal of the appellant from the post of Chairperson and H 773 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 12 S.C.R. A asking the Vice-Chairperson to take over the charge of the Chairperson in his place is not only untenable in law but also perverse - Division Bench failed to see that so long as the final adjudication is not done in accordance with law on merits in the election petitions, the District Court was vested with B the power to pass appropriate interim orders in relation to the impugned action u/s.22-A of the Act - Interim order- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0r.39 rr.1. and 2; Or.41 r.5. c Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. It is a well settled principle of law that the Courts are always vested with inherent and statutory power to stay/restrain the execution of the action impugned in the lis during pendency of the lis. These o powers are contained in Order 39 Rules 1and 2, and Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC. The Division Bench failed to see that so long as the final adjudication is not done in accordance with law on merits in the election petitions, the District Court was vested with the power to pass E appropriate interim orders in relat.ion to the impugned action under Section 22-A of the Act. The Division Bench also failed to appreciate that once writ petitions filed.by the appellant were allowed on 07.11.2014 by suspending the proceedings dated 11.08.2014, the respondents had F no option but to allow the appellant to function as the Chairman ofZPP. [Paras 45, 48 and 49] [787-E; 788·-A-B, D-E] ~ 2. The effect of the suspension order dated G 07.11.2014 of the Single Judge was that the appellant's disqualification from the post of member of ZPTC and the Chairperson of ZPP was kept in abeyance till the disposal of the election petitions. In other words, no effect was to be given to the appellant's disqualification in H relation to his status as member and the Chairperson till EDARAHARIBABU v. TULLURIVENKATANARASIMHAM 775 the disposal of the election petitions. The Single Judge A simultaneously in other two pending writ petitions by separate interim orders one dated 12.11.2014 and other dated 28.11.2014 had stayed the order dated 12.08.2014 by which the Vice- Chairperson of the ZPP was asked to assume the charge of the post of Chairperson and this B stay was in operation. In the light of these undisputed facts, there was no legal impediment for the appellant to have assumed the post of the Chairperson, ZPP which he did assume on 08.11.2014 pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2014 of the Single Judge. Once the appellant C · assumed the office of the Chairperson, the Division Bench should have dismissed the interlocutory applications as having rendered infructuous because the prayer made therein, namely, to restrain the appellant 0 from assuming the office of the Chairperson and asking the vice-Cha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.