Full Judgment
N.C. Jain and Amarjeet Chaudhary, JJ.
1. Since the point involved herein is a short one, we have thought it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition at the motion hearing.
2. In an election petition under Section 13(c) of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952 read with Rule 42 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Election Rules, the election of the petitioner as panch of the Gram Panchayat has been challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Executive Magistrate Samana, District Patiala. During the pendency of the election petition, the petitioner has been restrained from participating in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat vide order Annexure P.1 and it is the legality and validity of this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition before us.
3. Mr. Surjit Singh, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner could not be restrained from participating in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat during the pendency of the election petition in which it has yet to be seen whether a good ground for setting aside his election is made out. The impugned order has been defended by the counsel for respondent No. 2 Mr. P.S. Bhangu on the ground that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the election petition and, therefore, the prescribed authority had the power to pass restraint order during the pendency of the writ petition.
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and are of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. In our considered view the prescribed authority has acted in excess of its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The Election Tribunal under the provisions of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act has got limited jurisdiction to deal with election petition and has got no authority whatsoever in passing any interim order restraining a successful candidate from participating in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat, There is absolutely no provision in the Act authorising the Tribunal to pass restraint orders. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code do apply in general for the purpose of trying an election petition as if it is a suit because evidence has to produced by the parties. However, the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as such have not been made applicable authorising the Tribunal to grant injunction against the successful candidate. If the Legislature intended to vest any such power in the Tribunal, the intention could be demonstrated by enacting a specific provision. In our view, such provision has not been made in the Gram Panchayat Act for obvious reasons. Supposing a successful Panch is restrained during the pendency of the election petition from participating in the proceedings of the Gram Panchayat and ultimately the election petition is found to be meritless, the successful candidate in such an eventuality would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated even on payment of costs. In any case, we would not read something more in the Gram Panchayat Act which is not there authorising the Tribunal to pass restraint orders of the type which has been passed in the instant case. The precise point involved in this petition is not res integra. In two judicial pronouncements a similar view which we have taken in the present case has already been taken. In Kundan Singh v. Executive Magistrate Ist Class Barnala, (1975) 77 P.L.R. 661, R.S. Narula, J. while quashing the restraint order passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had held as under:-
'The Code of Civil Procedure contains several types of provisions including those relating to the procedure for the trial of Civil suits and those governing ancillary matters such as grant of temporary injunction etc. The operation of sub-section (1) of Section 13-G is confined to the procedure applicable for the trial of a suit and not to any ancillary matter which does not directly relate to such procedure. Moreover, while defining the powers of the prescribed authority, Section 13-I of the Act has scrupulously avoided to refer to order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. An Election Tribunal is a specially constituted Court of limited jurisdiction and has no authority to pass any order outside those limits. In the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, an Election Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction like that vested in an ordinary civil Court.'
In Kartar Singh v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rampura Phul and Anr., 1981 P.L.J. 202 a Single Bench of this Court held that there was no inherent jurisdiction vested in the Election Tribunal to pass stay order.
5. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken in the aforesaid cases and, therefore, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned order Annexure P.1 is quashed and the prescribed authority is directed to decide the Election petition expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from today. No costs.