CHANDE JAYANTI BHACHU Vs. ELECTION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the exparte injunction granted on 17.01.2017 in Election Petition No.10 of 2017 by Principal Civil Judge, Nalia, District Kutch below Exh.5, restraining the petitioners from participating in the election of Upasarpanch.

(2.) Significant facts:

(3.) Mr.Jinesh Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that Principal Judge has erred in granting exparte injunction on 17.01.2017 restraining the petitioners from participating in the election of Upasarpanch since the power of granting interim injunction is not bestowed on the Principal Civil Judge under section 31(1) of the Act. He has also relied on section 51 (5) of the Act, wherein it is stated that if there has been failure to elect a Sarpanch or when the elected Sarpanch is not willing to take office, the first meeting of such village Panchayat shall be presided over by such officer as the competent authority may appoint. He has stated that in the present case the undisputed fact remains that respondent No.2, though refused to preside as the sarpanch in the meeting of Upasarpanch, she attended the same as a member and Respondent No.3 was declared elected as Upasarpanch as there was no contest. He has submitted that because of the interim order dated 17.01.2017 the petitioners were not permitted to participate in the meeting dated 19.01.2017. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgements in the case of Sham Lal Vs. State Election Commission, 1997 AIR(P&H) 164 and in the case of Jagannath Pundlik and Ors. Vs. Sukhdeo Onkar Wankhede, 1967 AIR(Bom) 317.