MOHAMMAD SIRAJ AHAMED Vs. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 19 May, 1998 passed by the learned Member, Election Tribunal, Imphal, Manipur in Election petition Misc. Case No.1 of 1998 (Ref : ElectionPetition No.1 of 1998) is the subject matter under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Supporting the case of the writ petitioner. Mr. N. Kotishwor Singh, the learned counsel contended inter alia, that the writ petitioner, the respondent No.4 and other 4(four) persons were the contesting candidates in the Election to the Pradhan of seat No.7/18, Kairang Khomidok Gram Panchayat and that the election was held smoothly on 31-1-1997; the writ petitioner was declared to have been elected by over 60 (sixty) votes more than his nearest rival candidate, namely,the respondent No.4 and accordingly, on the same day a certificate of election was issued by the respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioner but the petitioner heard that his election has been nullified by the respondent No.3 and subsequently, a notice was issued on 8th February, 1997 by the respondent No.3, thereby cancelling the certificate issued in favour of the writ petitioner as null and void, thus notifying the respondent No.4 as the returned candidate for the said Gram panchayet ; and being aggrieved by the impugned notification dated 8th February,1997, the writ petitioner had challenged the validity of the said notification dated 8th February, 1997 before the Election Tribunal, Manipur, coupled with a prayer for declaring the Election Certificate dated 6th February,1997 issued in favour of the writ petitioner as valid one and for declaring the subsequent Election Certificate dated 8th February,1997 issued in favour of the respondent No.4 as null and void. According to the writ petitioner, he filed a miscellaneous application being Election petition Misc. case No.1 of 1998 for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them to administer the oath of office as Pradhan of the said Gram Panchayat till the disposal of the main election petition under Order 39 Rules 1,2 and 3 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and after hearing the parties the learned Member of the Election Tribunal, Manipur dismissed the application by holding that the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction or power to entertain the present application filed under Order 39 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Mr. Kotishwor, the learned counsel argued that the learned Member of the Election Tribunal has erred in holding that Election Tribunal is not a Civil Court inasmuch as the matter pertaining to grant of temporary injunction for restraining the taking of oath of the respondent No.4 is directly related to election matter for which Sec.103 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act conferred upon the Election Tribunal to deal with any other election matter and rather, the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass appropriate order under Order 39 or Sec. 151 of C.P.C. It is also argued that Rule 71 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act (Election) Rules,1995 provides that the procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 will be applicable, which includes powers under Sec.151 and Order 39 C.P.C. and that the Rules under the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1995 cannot restrict the scope of the Election Tribunal as has been provided under Sec.103 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1995. Mr. Kotishwor, learned counsel contended as the inherent power conferred by Sec.151 C.P.C. has not been excluded by the Panchayati Raj Act, the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for grant of injunction or any interim order restraining taking of oath by the respondent No.4. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that where Sec.103 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act conferred a jurisdiction to deal with any other election matter, it impliedly also grant the power of doing or deciding a matter pertaining to an application under Order 39 C.P.C. or Sec.151 C.P.C. but the learned Member of the Election Tribunal had failed to exercise jurisdiction conferred upon it and as such the impugned order deserves to be quashed and necessary direction may be made to the learned Tribunal for deciding the matter pertaining to temporary injunction on its merit.

(3.) At the hearing Mr. N. Promode Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3; the writ petitioner nowhere in his petition claimed or challenged the validity of the nos. of votes secured by respondent No.4 and as such the claim of the writ petitioner is quite unsustainable and also unjustifiable. According to Mr. N. Promode Chandra Singh Election Tribunal constituted under Sec.103 of the Manipur Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 is not a Court but a creature of statute and as such the Election Tribunal has only such powers as conferred on it by statute expressly or by necessary implication and it has none of the inherent powers of an ordinary Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel forthe respondents that according to Rule 71(1) of the Manipur Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1995,