Judgment:
W.A.No.13 of 2013 W.A.Nos.13, 14 and 26 of 2013 Present: Mr.R.C.Sarangi, Advocate for the petitioneRs.Mr.P.K.Mohanty, Sr.Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Mr.D.Panda, Addl.Govt.
Advocate 11 12.2.2014 This order will dispose of W.A.Nos.13, 14 and 26 of 2013 as all the appeals are between the same parties and arise out of the same proceedings.
The appellant was declared elected as Sarapanch of the Grama Panchayat.
The same was called in question by the private opposite party, who was one of the candidates.
After the trial, the trial court accepted the election petition declared the election of the appellant void and the election petitioner to be duly elected.
The appellant thereafter preferred appeal, which is pending before the appellate court.
Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court vacating stay, initially granted to the appellant, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Learned Single Judge initially granted stay, but since on the same day, the election petitioner was notified as Sarapanch by the Collector as per orders of courts below, while disposing of the writ petition with a direction to the appellate court to decide the pending appeals within four weeks, status quo was directed to be maintained.
Since status quo was operating in favour of the election petitioner, the appellant has preferred appeals and interim order was granted in his favour, which has been continuing for the last about one year, continuing the appellant and restraining passing of final order.
The appellate court has No.been able to take up the matteRs.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during pendency of statutory appeal, the appellant is entitled to continue to work as Sarapanch.
Learned counsel for the election petitioner opposed the prayer and submits that No.only the election of the appellant has been declared void, the election petitioner has been declared elected and he could No.be deprived of benefit of judicial finding.
We are of the view that interim order by appellate court has to be passed after balancing equities on well settled legal principles.
In any case, since the appellant has continued for one year under interim order, it will be in the interest of justice to dispose of the appeals with a direction that the appellate court may No.decide the pending appeals within one month from the date of appearance of the parties.
Till then, status quo as on today will continue.
With this order it is No.necessary to go into the rival contentions in support of operation of interim order.
The parties may appear before the appellate court for further proceedings on 21st February, 2014.
The appellate court will No.grant any adjournment at the instance of either parties.
The appeals are disposed of.
…………………….
A.K.Goel, C.J.PKS CRB …………………….Dr.
A.K.Rath, J.
`