JUDGMENT O.H. Mootham, C.J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner and the second respondent were candidates for election to the State Legislative Assembly from the Bhawan Constituency No. 24 at an election held on 6-3-1857. At this election the petitioner was declared duly elected and thereafter the second respondent filed an election petition challenging the validity of the petitioner's election on a number of grounds.
The election petition was referred by the Election Commission for trial to an Election Tribunal which framed certain issues. On 20-8-1957, Sri Gliayur All Khan, the present petitioner and respondent before the Election Tribunal, filed an application that the petition be struck out as being vague and not in conformity with the provisions of Section 83, Clause (b), of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the issues be revised.
The Election Tribunal by an order dated 30-8-1957, framed three additional Issues and, save for a direction that the words "and student" in para. 3 (1) (a) and the words "and supporters"
in para 3 (1) (b) of the election petition be deleted, it rejected the application.
3. In the petition now before us Sri Gha-yur Ali Khan avers that the Election Tribunal was wrong in law in not striking out the paragraphs of the election petition specified by him in his application and he prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 30-8-1957.
4. We are of opinion that the petition must be rejected. The impugned order is an interlocutory order made by the Election Tribunal in the exercise of its discretion, and we think it to be a salutary and now well established rule that this Court will not ordinarily be justified in the exercise of its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution in interfering with such orders save possibly in those cases in which the order is plainly arbitrary or capricious.
We have read the impugned order and we think it impossible to hold that it is an order which can be so described. We express no opinion as to the correctness of the order, for the present petitioner can, if occasion arises, question its legality on appeal from the final order of the Election Tribunal.
5. It has been pressed upon us by learned counsel that a party to an election petition may be put to great inconvenience by the refusal of the Court to interfere with interlocutory orders, but we are of opinion that the disadvantages which will arise from the Court taking any other view are likely greatly to exceed the advantages. It is of the first importance that election petitions should be disposed of speedily -- the Representation of the People Act, 1951, itself requires it --and we can conceive of no greater obstacle to this end being achieved than by the Court entertaining petitions against interlocutory orders save in very exceptional circumstances.
6. The petition fails and is dismissed.