Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1050 (RAJ)

Roop Kala v. District Judge

2000-08-18

R.R.YADAV

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the legality and validity of order dated 10.2.2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the respondent No.1, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Election Tribunal') has passed an injunction order restraining the petitioner, from participating as a member of the Panchayat Samiti in the election process of Pradhan and Up-Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Umrain and also participating in the meeting of the Panchayat Samiti in an election petition filed by respondent No.2 against her under Rule 80 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj (Election) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules of 1994). 2. The brief facts which are relevant for disposal of the present writ petition are that: on 8.2.2000, there was an election of members of Panchayat Samiti, Umrain District Alwar wherein the petitioner was a candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress along with three other candidates namely; Smt. Prakash, Smt. Ranjana and Smt. Suman Jain. The Returning Officer in form No.7 recorded his declaration whereby he declared the petitioner as elected member from ward No.8 of Panchayat Samiti Umrain and also issued election certificate to her a copy whereof is filed and marked as Annexure-1. 3. It is revealed from the averments made in the writ petition that Smt. Suman Jain, respondent No.2 filed an election petition under Rule 80 of the Rules of 1994 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 102 read with Section 17(5) of the Rajasthan Panchaayti Raj Act, 1994 challenging the election of the petitioner and submitted an application for grant of temporary injunction/stay order along with the election petition before the Election Tribunal, Alwar. In the injunction/stay application, the relief sought by respondent No.2 Smt. Suman Jain was that on the basis of declaration of result dated 8.2.2000 a stay order be passed against the petitioner restraining her from functioning as a member of the Panchayat Samiti. 4. It is revealed from a close scrutiny of the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal that irrespective of the fact that under proviso to Rule 86 of the Rules of 1994 the Election Tribunals are prohibited either to grant injunctions or stay orders restraining the persons, whose elections are questioned, from exercising the power and performing the duties under the Act and Rules made thereunder, yet respondent No.1 has granted temporary injunction against the petitioner. 5. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 at length and also perused the order passed by the Election Tribunal. 6. It is urged by Shri P.S. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Election Tribunal hearing the petition has no jurisdiction either to issue injunction or stay order restraining the petitioner, whose election was questioned before it, within the meaning of proviso to Rule 86 of the Rules of 1994. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by the Election Tribunal is without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. 7. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is refuted by Shri R.P. Garg, learned counsel for respondent No.2. It is urged before me that the aforesaid provisions were not brought to the notice of the Election Tribunal therefore, the order impugned was passed in the interest of justice and fair play and as such it is not assailable in writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that it is not the duty of the parties alone to bring the correct law before the Courts or the Tribunals but all the courts of law and Tribunals are under legal obligation to take judicial notice of law in force in the Territory of India within the meaning of Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads thus:-Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus: "57. Facts of which Court must take judicial notice-The Court shall take judicial notice of the following facts: (1) All laws in force in the territory of India. (2) xxxx xxxx xxxx 8. It is held that law includes any Ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having force of law in the territory of India. Indisputably in the present case, proviso to Rule 86 of the Rules of 1994 had force of law on the date when the impguned temporary injunction was granted by Election Tribunal. 9. I am of the view that the order impugned dated 10.2.2000 passed by the Election Tribunal, Alwar is void ab initio and the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass such an order. 9. I am of the view that the order impugned dated 10.2.2000 passed by the Election Tribunal, Alwar is void ab initio and the Tribunal lacks inherent jurisdiction to pass such an order. It is further held that an order passed without jurisdiction is nullity and its validity can be questioned whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced and any argument contrary to it is wholly repelled and rejected. (See AIR 1954 SC 340 ). 10. It is well to remember that every High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Thus under Article 227 of the Constitution this Court cannot afford to allow Election Tribunal in the present case to transgress its jurisdictional limit beyond the scope of statutory proviso to Rule 86 of the Rules of 1994.What has been discussed hereinabove, the order impugned dated 10.2.2000, annexure-4 to the writ petition passed by respondent No.1 is, hereby, quashed and the instant writ petition is allowed with cost assessed to Rs. 1,000/- with a direction to the election tribunal, where the election petition is pending, to decide it expeditiously.Petition Allowed with costs. *******