RAMANBHAI AMBALAL PATEL Vs. ISHWARBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge in an interlocutory application i.e. Civil Application No. 2197 of 1988 in Special Civil Application No. 6230 of 1988.

(2.) The short facts of this case are that there was a Notification to elect a Sarpanch of Ranoli Gram Panchayat issued on 21-5-1987. Nominations were called for and time was given to file nomination papers from 1-6-1987 to 3-6-1987. On 4-6-1987 there was a scrutiny of the nomination papers. Respondent No. 1 herein filled up his nomination paper on 29-5-1987 in two forms and submitted one of them on 1-6-1987 and the other on 3-6-1987. The District Development Officer has removed the respondent No. 1 from the office of Sarpanch which post respondent No. 1 was holding by his order dated 3-6-1987. An objection was taken regarding the nomination paper filed by the respondent No. 1 on 4-6-1987. The said objection was overruled by the Scrutiny Officer and the respondent No. 1 was permitted to contest the election. In the election respondent No. 1 was declared elected as Sarpanch. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Scrutiny Officer the appellant herein filed an Election Petition before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vadodara under Sec. 24 of the Panchayats Act. The Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara who is constituted as the Election Tribunal under the Act by his order dated 8 set aside the election of the respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said order the 1st respondent herein has filed Special Civil Application No. 6230 of 1988 on 12-9-1988. On 6-10-1988 the Additional Development Commissioner who is the appellate authority over and above the District Development Officer on appeal set aside the order of the District Development Officer passed by him on 3 removing the 1st respondent from the office of Sarpanch under Sec. 49 of the Panchayats Act. Immediately respondent No. 1 came forward with Civil Application No. 2197 of 1988 for the purpose of staying the order of the Election Tribunal which according to him is bad since the setting aside of the election was purely on the ground that the District Development Officer has removed the 1st respondent from office under Sec. 49 of the Panchayats Act on 3-6-1987. The learned single Judge hearing this Civil Application and finding that the election was set aside purely on the ground that the District Development Officer has removed the 1st respondent herein from office under Sec. 49 of the Panchayats Act granted stay of the order passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara in Election Petition No. 18 of 1987 Aggrieved by the said order the appellant who is the 1st respondent in the Civil Application has come forward with the present Letters Patent Appeal

(3.) We have heard Mr. G. N. Desai only on the question of maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The 1st respondent herein came forward with the Special Civil Application under Art 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the Election Tribunal. In that Special Civil Application Civil Application No. 2197 of 1988 was filed for staying the operation of the order passed by the Election Tribunal.