Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents-State has been accepted by the office of the learned standing counsel. Shri Amar Nath Dubey, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.5.
With the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh while exercising powers as an appellate authority under the provisions of Panchayati Raj Act. In the pending revision bearing No.6/2018, the revisional Court has stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 27.08.2018.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the impugned order dated 27.08.2018, the instant revision was preferred. Initially, an application for stay was rejected. Thereafter, the opposite party No.5 preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.21599 (MS) of 2019, which was finally decided by this Court by means of the order dated 08.08.2019 and the matter was remanded to the revisional Court to consider the application for interim relief of the petitioner bearing paper book No.Ga-6 expeditiously. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred a Special Appeal No.393/2019, which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on the premise that the special appeal is not maintainable.
The fact remained that the order passed by a Coodinate Bench of this Court on 08.08.2019 was placed before the revisional court, who thereafter considering the same has passed the impugned order dated 13.09.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering the facts and circumstances and none of the objections as raised by the petitioner has been considered. It has further been submitted that the revisional court below merely by relying upon a decision of this Court dated 08.08.2019 has passed the order without applying its independent mind as to whether a case for interim relief was made out or not. It has further been submitted that earlier his application for stay was rejected on the ground that the order impugned in the revision had already been executed and, therefore, once the order had been executed, such order could not be stayed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Paragraph-4(f) of the petition, wherein it has been specifically pleaded that the order dated 27.08.2018 in pursuance thereof, the opposite party No.5 was removed and the charge was handed over to the petitioner. He is holding the charge since 10.09.2018 and more than a year lapsed. It is in this backdrop, it has been prayed that the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 is causing hardship and the same is against the settled principles of law.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 submits that the order impugned is merely a discretionary order and it is settled law that where a revision or an appeal is pending before the superior Court and if the impugned order is even executed, it is trite to submit that the operation of such an order must be stayed and applying the aforesaid principles that the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh has exercised its discretion and has stayed the order which does not require any interference. It has also been submitted that the matter is fixed before the aforesaid Court on 10.10.2019 and the opposite party No.5 submits that he is ready to finally argue the matter on the date fixed. Accordingly, this Court may not intervene with the impugned order.
Having considering the rival submissions and from the perusal of the record, it is stated that the proceedings under the Panchayati Raj Act are pending before the Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh bearing Revision No.6/2018. It is not in dispute that the matter is fixed on 10.10.2019.
From the record, it is undisputed by the opposite party No.5 that the impugned order by which the election of the opposite party No.5 was set aside is dated 27.08.218 and in furtherance thereof the charge has been taken from the opposite party No.5 and has been conferred with the petitioner who has been exercising his powers as such for about an year. This was the relevant circumstances for the Court to have considered while dealing with the application for interim relief. It is also not disputed that initially the order was passed by the revisional Court dismissing the application that the order had been executed and, therefore, such an order cannot be stayed. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the order dated 13.09.2019 creates more confusion rather than preserving the situation till such date the matter is finally decided.
In the peculiar facts of this case, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 13.09.2019 cannot be sustained and accordingly is set aside. However, in the aforesaid circumstances and with the consent of the parties' counsel, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met and it is directed that the parties shall appear before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Pratapgarh and finally argue the pending revision No.6/2018 on the date fixed i.e. 10.10.2019 and shall not seek any adjournment. It is further provided that neither the parties shall seek adjournment nor the Court shall not grant any adjournment and shall make all endeavour to decide the application on the date fixed and for any reason, if it is not possible, then decide the same within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is partly allowed. The revisional court shall pass orders on merit without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Rakesh/-