Page 1

REPORTABLE

        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

           CIVIL APPEAL No.7115 OF 2015

      (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 36764/2014)

Edara Haribabu …….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Tulluri Venkata Narasimham  & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL No.7116 OF 2015   (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 36773/2014)

AND

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) Nos. 5896-5897/2015

Mudavath Manthru Naik …….Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Edara Haribabu & Ors. ……Respondent(s)

1

Page 2

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

In S.L.P.(c)Nos. 36764/2014 & 36773/2014

1. Leave granted.

2. These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  common

interim order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the High

Court  of  Judicature  at  Hyderabad for  the  State  of

Telangana  and  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  in

W.A.M.P. No. 3416 of 2014 in W.A. No.1386 of 2014

and W.A.M.P. No. 3418 of 2014 in W.A. No.1388 of

2014  whereby  while  disposing  of  the  applications

filed in  these appeals,  the High Court  directed the

Vice-Chairperson  of  Zilla  Praja  Parishad  (in  short

“ZPP”),  Prakasam  District,  ongole  to  discharge  the

functions  of  the  Chairperson  for  the  office  of  Zilla

Praja  Parishad,  Prakasam  District,  Ongole  until

further orders.

2

Page 3

3. In  order  to  appreciate  the  issue  involved  in

these appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is

necessary  to  state  a  few relevant  facts  which were

taken from the record of the S.L.Ps.

4. The  appellant  is  the  duly  elected  member  of

Zilla  Parishad  Territorial  Constituency  (in  short

“ZPTC”) of Ponnaluru Mandal, Prakasam District.  He

had contested this election as a candidate of Telugu

Desam Party (in short “TDP”) for Prakasam District,

Ongole. On 26.06.2014, the Election Commission for

the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  (in  short  “the  State

Election  Commission”)-respondent  No.3  herein

issued  orders  directing  various  District  Collectors

including  the  District  Collector-cum-Presiding

Officer, Prakasam District (Respondent No.2 herein)

to conduct election to the office of Chairperson and

Vice-Chairperson  of  the  Zilla  Praja  Parishads  (in

short ‘ZPP’) on 05.07.2014.   

3

Page 4

5. However,  the  elections  to  the  offices  of

Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of ZPP,  Prakasam

District  could  not  be  held  on  the  said  date,  i.e.

05.07.2014,  and  were  accordingly  postponed  to  a

later date.

6. On  07.07.2014,  an  order  was  issued  by  the

District  Collector,  Prakasam  District  (respondent

No.4  herein)   requesting  the  State  Election

Commission  (respondent  No.3  herein)  to  hold  the

election on 13.07.2014.   

7. On 09.07.2014, the State President of the TDP

addressed a letter to the State Election Commission

(respondent  No.3)  informing  that  one  Shri  Bonda

Uma Maheswara Rao, General Secretary of the TDP,

is  authorized  to  issue  Form-A  and  Form-B  as

prescribed  in  Rule  22(1)  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh

Conduct of Election of Member (Co-opted), President

and Vice-President of Mandal Parishad and Members

4

Page 5

(Co-opted), Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of Zila

Parishad Rules, 2006  (hereinafter referred to as “The

Rules”)  and  is  also  authorized  to  issue  the

appointment  of  whip  for  the  said  elections  in  the

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   Shri  Bonda  Uma

Maheswara  Rao  then  issued  Form-A  dated

10.07.2014 authorizing one Shri D. Janardhana Rao,

the District President of the Prakasam District TDP to

issue Form-B to the candidates set up by the TDP in

the  aforesaid  election  insofar  as  ZPP,  Prakasam

district was concerned and on the same day he also

informed  the  same  to  the  District

Collector-cum-Presiding  Officer,  Prakasam  District,

Ongole.  

8. On  12.07.2014,  Shri  D.  Janardhana  Rao

informed the District Collector-cum-Presiding Officer

(respondent  No.2)  that  Shri  Tulluri  Venkata

Narasimham (respondent  No.1)  has been appointed

5

Page 6

as  whip  on  behalf  of  the  TDP  in  relation  to  the

election  to  the  office  of  Chairperson  and

Vice-Chairperson of ZPP, of Prakasam District. Shri

Tulluri Venkata Narasimham (Respondent No.1) then

issued a whip on 12.07.2014 directing all the ZPTC

members belonging to the TDP to vote in favour of

Shri  Manne Ravindra for  the office of  Chairperson.

On the  next  day,  i.e.  13.07.2014,  respondent  No.1

issued another whip directing all the TDP members of

the ZPTC to vote in favour of Smt. P. Koteswaramma

for the office of Vice-Chairperson.  

9. According to the appellant, when the whip was

issued, the appellant was not present in Ongole but

was at Hyderabad from 07.07.2014 to 12.07.2014. It

was  for  this  reason,  the  appellant  alleged  that  he

neither  received  nor  served  with  the  copy  of  two

whips  which were  alleged to  have  been issued.  He

also alleged that his signature acknowledging receipt

6

Page 7

of the said whips were either forged or fabricated.   

10. On  13.07.2014,  the  said  elections  were

conducted  by  the  District  Collector-cum-Presiding

Officer.   The  appellant,  however,  contested  the

election to the office of Chairperson, ZPP, Prakasam

District as an “independent candidate” and cast his

vote in his own favour and in favour of one Shri N.

Balaji,  an  independent  candidate  for  the  office  of

Vice-Chairperson.   The  appellant  won  the  election

and  was  accordingly  declared  elected  as  the

Chairperson  by  one  vote  defeating  Sri  Manne

Ravindra,  the candidate proposed by the TDP as a

candidate to the post of Chairperson.  

11. This led to filing of a complaint by Shri Tulluri

Venkata Narasimham (respondent No.1) against the

appellant  on  14.07.2014  before  the  District

Collector-cum-Presiding  Officer  (respondent  No.2)

alleging inter alia that he was appointed as a whip by

7

Page 8

the  TDP  in  relation  to  the  said  election  held  on

13.07.2014 and that  the appellant cast his vote in

the said election in violation of the whips issued by

the TDP on 12.07.2014 and 13.07.2014.

12. On 16.07.2014, a show cause notice was issued

to the appellant calling upon him to show cause as to

why  action  should  not  be  taken  against  him  for

violating the directions issued in the whips and why

he should not be disqualified as per G.O.Ms. No. 173

dated 10.05.2014 and Section 22(5)  of  the  Andhra

Pradesh  Panchayat  Raj  Act,  1994  (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”).

13. The  appellant  submitted  his  explanation  on

04.08.2014 stating inter alia that he had not violated

the  whips.   It  was  also  his  case  that  he  had  not

received any whip and his signatures on the whips’

receipts were either fake or fabricated by someone.

He  also  stated  that  he  was  at  Hyderabad  from

8

Page 9

07.07.2014 to 12.07.2014 and hence did not receive

the  alleged  whips  even  if  issued.  He,  therefore,

prayed  the  District  Collector-cum-Presiding  Officer

(respondent No.2) to conduct a detailed inquiry in the

matter.   

14. By  order  dated  11.08.2014  in  Rc.No.

P1/4598-Indirect election/13, the Presiding Officer &

District  Collector,  Prakasam  District,  Ongole

disqualified  the  appellant  as  the  member  of  ZPTC,

Ponnaluru and directed him to vacate the office of the

Chairperson, ZPP, Prakasam Dist., Ongole.   

15. On 12.08.2014, the Chief Executive Officer (in

short  “CEO”),  ZPP,  Ongole  by  proceedings  in

Rc.No.P1/4959/2014,  directed  Shri  N.  Balaji,

Vice-Chairperson to temporarily take over the charge

of the office of Chairperson until a new Chairperson

is duly elected.   

16. Challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 passed

9

Page 10

by  the  Presiding  Officer  &  District  Collector,

Prakasam  District,  Ongole,  the  appellant  filed

W.P.No. 23541 of 2014 before the High Court.   Vide

order  dated  22.08.2014,  the  High  Court  dismissed

the petition granting liberty to the petitioner therein

to approach the District Court by taking recourse to

the remedy available under Section 181-A of the Act.  

17. The appellant accordingly filed E.O.P. No. 8 of

2014  and  E.O.P.  No.  9  of  2014  before  the  Ist

Additional  District  Judge,  Ongole against  the order

dated 11.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer on

the  grounds  pleaded  therein.   He  also  filed

I.A.Nos.1697  of  2014  in  E.O.P  No.  8/2014  and

I.A.No.1684 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 9/2014 to grant ad

interim  injunction  by  suspending  the  order  dated

11.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer,  Ongole

in Rc. No. P1/4598-Indirect Election/B.  By orders

dated 07.10.2014, the Ist  Additional  District  Judge

10

Page 11

dismissed  the  said  I.As.  and  declined  to  grant

injunction prayed by the appellant.

18. Questioning the order dated 07.10.2014  passed

by the Ist Additional District Judge, Ongole, in I.A.

No. 1697 of 2014 in E.O.P. No. 8 of 2014 & I.A.No.

1684 of 2014 in E.O.P. No. 9 of 2014, the appellant

filed W.P. Nos. 30790 and  30791 of 2014 before the

High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State

of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

19. In view of the disqualification of the appellant

herein,  a  representation  was  submitted  by  Mr.

Garinipudi Steeven & 24 others on 28.08.2014 to the

State  Election  Commission  and  the  District

Collector-cum-Presiding Officer for conducting fresh

elections.  Since the said application was not being

considered  by  the  State  Election  Commission,  the

abovesaid petitioners filed W.P.  No.  30799 of  2014

before the High Court.

11

Page 12

20. The  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court

heard  W.P.Nos.  30790,  30791  and  30799  of  2014

together  and  by  common  order  dated  07.11.2014,

allowed  W.P. Nos. 39790 and 30791 of 2014 filed by

the  appellant  herein  and  quashed  the  order  dated

07.10.2014  passed  by  the  Ist  Additional  District

Judge.  The learned Single Judge then suspended the

proceedings dated 11.08.2014 by which the appellant

was disqualified as ZPTC member and consequently

as Chairperson of ZPP.  So far as W.P. No.30799 of

2014, which was filed for conducting fresh election in

view of  the disqualification of  the appellant  herein,

was concerned,  it was dismissed.  

21. On 08.11.2014, the appellant addressed a letter

to  the  CEO,  ZPPs,  Prakasam  District,  Ongole

informing  him  that  the  order  dated  11.08.2014

passed  by  the  District  Collector-cum-Presiding

Officer,  Prakasam District regarding disqualification

12

Page 13

of his membership as ZPTC and also Chairperson of

ZPP  was  suspended  vide  order  dated  07.11.2014

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court

in W.P. Nos. 39790 and 30791 of 2014 and hence the

appellant  be  allowed  to  resume  the  office  of   the

Chairperson, ZPP. Prakasam District.

22. The  appellant  accordingly   on  08.11.2014

resumed the office of Chairperson and took over the

charge  of  the  office  of  the  Chairperson,  ZPP,

Prakasam  District  and  started  conducting  various

meetings and took various decisions.

23. To complete the narration of the facts,  it  may

here  be  mentioned  that  one  Rajendra  Prasad,  felt

aggrieved of  the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by

the CEO in Rc.No.P1/4959/2014, by which Mr.  N.

Balaji  Vice-Chairperson  was  temporarily  allowed to

take  over  the  charge  of  the  office  of  Chairperson

consequent  upon  declaration  of  appellant’s

13

Page 14

disqualification for the post of Chairperson and filed

a writ petition bearing W.P.No.31113 of 2014 before

the High Court.   

24. Vide order dated 12.11.2014, the learned Single

Judge  of  the  High  Court  allowed  W.P.No.31113  of

2014 filed by M.Rajendra Prasad and suspended the

proceedings  dated  12.08.2014  subject  to  further

orders.

25. In  the  meantime,  Shri  Tulluri  Venkata

Narasimham- respondent No.1 herein filed W.A.M.P.

No.  3416  of  2014  in  W.A.No.  1386  of  2014   and

W.A.M.P. No. 3418 of 2014 in W.A. No. 1388 of 2014

before  the  High  Court  challenging  the  order  dated

07.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge.

26. On  12.11.2014,  the  Chief  Executive  Officer

(CEO),  ZPP  addressed  a  letter  in  Rc.

No.P1/4598/High  Court  Cases/2013  to  the

Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development

14

Page 15

stating that pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2014

passed by the High Court, the appellant has resumed

the office of the Chairperson, ZPP, Prakasam District

on 08.11.2014.   However,  respondent  No.1,  on his

part  informed  that  he  had  preferred  an  appeal

against the order dated 07.11.2014 before the High

Court.   Though there was no interim order passed in

the  writ  appeals  filed  by  respondent  No.1  herein

before  the  High  Court  yet  the  CEO  sought

clarifications from the Commissioner on this issue as

to what should be done in the case.   

27. On 13.11.2014, the appellant, was constrained

to  send  a  legal  notice  to  the  CEO  to  ensure

compliance of the order dated 07.11.2014 passed by

the  learned  Single  Judge  and  co-operate  with  the

appellant  to enable him to discharge the duties as

Chairperson and forthwith withdraw the clarification

letter  dated  12.11.2014  sent  by  him  to  the

15

Page 16

Commissioner, which according to appellant was not

at all necessary.    

28. On 14.11.2014, the appellant also addressed a

letter to the Commissioner against the CEO and Dy.

C.E.O. and requested him to take disciplinary action

against  them.   By  letter  dated  15.11.2014,  the

Commissioner  informed  to  the  Secretary  to  the

Government  that  the  appellant  has  resumed  the

office of the Chairperson from 08.11.2014.   

29. On 25.11.2014, one Shri Lakshminarayana filed

W.P.  No.  36421  of  2014  seeking  suspension  of

proceedings dated 12.08.2014 of the CEO directing

the Vice-Chairperson to act as the Chairperson which

was  already  the  subject  matter  of  pending  Writ

Petition  No.  31113/2014.  On  26.11.2014,  the

appellant filed an application for bringing on record

the documents to show that he has already resumed

the office as the Chairperson pursuant to the final

16

Page 17

order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Single

Judge  in W.P. Nos. 30790 & 30791 of 2014 and has

been  functioning  since  08.11.2014.   He,  therefore,

contended  that  there  arise  no  occasion  to  allow

anyone  to  resume  the  post  of  Chairperson  and

secondly,  no  vacancy  arises  for  the  post  of

Chairperson at least till the final disposal of the main

election petitions pending before the District Court.

30. The  High  Court,  in  the  meantime,  by  order

dated  28.11.2014  in  W.P.  No.  36241  of  2014

suspended the proceedings dated 12.08.2014 of the

CEO by which he had directed the Vice- Chairperson

to  act  as  Chairperson,  as  was  already  done  in

identical  Writ  Petition  No.  31113/2014  by  order

dated 12.11.2014.   

31. Against  the  said  orders,  i.e.  order  dated

12.11.2014  passed  in  W.P.No.  31113  of  2014  and

order dated 28.11.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.

17

Page 18

36241/2014,  two  writ  appeals  bearing  W.A.  Nos.

1484 and 1485 of 2014 were preferred.     

32. On 01.12.2014,  the appellant  filed application

bearing  WAMP  No.  3690  of  2014  in  W.A.  No.

1386/2014 and W.A.M.P. No. 3691 of 2014 in W.A.

No. 1388 of 2014  inter alia praying for considering

the  additional  documents  in  support  of  his

contention that there is no vacancy for the post of

Chairperson.   

33. By  impugned  interim  order  dated  10.12.2014

passed in  W.A.M.P.  No.  3416 of  2014 in  W.A.  No.

1386 of 2014 and W.A.M.P. No. 3418 of 2014 in W.A.

No.  1388 of  2014, the Division Bench directed the

Vice-Chairperson  to  discharge  the  functions  of  the

Chairperson  until  further  orders  and  further

restrained  the  respondents  from  filling  up  the

vacancy  of  Chairperson.  The  Division  Bench  also

directed  the  District  Judge  to  decide  the  pending

18

Page 19

Election  Petitions  within  three  months  and  posted

the appeals for hearing after two months.   

34. Against  the  aforesaid  interim  order,  the

appellant has filed these appeals by way of special

leave before this Court.

35. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing

for  the  appellant  while  assailing  the  legality  and

correctness  of  the  impugned  order  contended  that

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  erred  in

allowing  the  interlocutory  applications  filed  by

respondent  No.1  herein  and  giving  impugned

directions.  He  submitted  that  in  the  light  of  well

reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing  the  writ  petitions  filed  by  the  appellant

herein  and  keeping  his  disqualification  of

membership/Chairpersonship  under  suspension  till

disposal  of  the  election  petitions,  both  intra  court

appeals  and  applications  had  virtually  become

19

Page 20

infructuous and hence were liable to be dismissed as

such.

36. Learned senior counsel then contended that no

prima  facie case  was  made  out  for  passing  the

impugned  order  because  the  appellant  herein  had

already  resumed  the  office  of  the  Chairperson  on

08.11.2014 pursuant to the order dated 07.11.2014

passed by the learned Single Judge.

37. Learned  counsel  pointed  out  that  once  the

appellant  resumed  the  post  of  the  Chairperson

pursuant  to  order  passed  by  the  learned  Single

Judge, the only direction that should have been given

while  disposing  of  the  appeal/application  by  the

Division Bench was to decide the appellant's election

petitions by the Ist Additional District Judge, Ongole

on merits expeditiously.

38. Learned  Counsel  further  contended  that  even

assuming  that  the  High  Court  could  go  into  the

20

Page 21

merits of the controversy, though it should not have,

yet it was the appellant who was able to make out

prima facie case as was rightly held by the learned

Single  Judge  in  his  favour  when  he  allowed

appellant's  writ  petition  arising  out  of  the  interim

order of the  Additional District Judge.

39. Referring to Rules 21 and 22, learned Counsel

contended that the alleged whips issued by the TDP

in relation to the election in question were not legal

because  it  did  not  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the

twin  rules.  Learned  Counsel  while  criticizing  the

manner in which the Division Bench recorded certain

findings against the well settled principles of law and

contended  that  the  impugned  order  besides  being

interim in nature is wholly legally unsustainable and

hence deserves to be set aside.

40. In  contra,  Mr.  A.K.  Ganguli,  learned  senior

counsel  appearing  for  respondent  No.1,  while

21

Page 22

supporting the impugned order  contended that  the

same  being  interim  in  nature,  no  interference  is

called  for  under  Article  136 of  the  Constitution  of

India.

41. Having  heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case and

the  written  submissions,  we  find  force  in  the

submissions  of  the  learned  senior  counsel  for  the

appellant.

42. The  short  question,  which  arises  for

consideration  in  these  appeals,  is  whether  the

Division  Bench  was  justified  in  allowing  the

applications filed in pending writ appeals and was,

therefore, justified in issuing mandatory directions?

43. The impugned directions read as under:

“We,  therefore,  direct  the  Vice-Chairperson, until further orders of this Court, to discharge the functions of the Chairperson in terms of the  aforesaid  legal  provision.   However,  we restrain  all  the  official  respondents  from taking any steps or further steps to fill up the

22

Page 23

vacancy  which  resulted  because  of  the disqualification order.

It  would  be  ideal  if  the  District  Judge decides the matter pending on his file within three months instead of six months from the date of communication of this order.

These  two  appeals  will  come  up  for hearing two months hence.

WAMPs are ordered accordingly.”   

The  aforementioned  directions  are  based  on

following two findings recorded by the High Court:

“We  are  of  the  opinion  that  until  and unless the order of disqualification is set aside, it  remains  operative.   Unlike  the  Court,  the Collector  has no power  to  grant  an order  of injunction.   In  our  view,  of  course,  prima facie, the order of suspension of the learned Trial  Judge  in  the  above  legal  and  factual scenario  is  futile  and  cannot  even  be implemented.”

“…..We think that some sort of workable interim order was passed keeping in view the balance  of  convenience,  as  under  the Constitution,  there  is  no  express  provision that in case of vacancy in the office of Prime Minister,  anyone  will  function  as  a  Prime Minister, as a Head of the Council of Ministers. On the contrary,  on  the  vacancy,  the  entire Cabinet would stand dissolved.”

44. In our considered opinion,  the aforementioned

23

Page 24

two  findings  are  not  legally  sustainable  for  the

reasons mentioned infra.

45. It  is  a  well  settled  principle  of  law  that  the

Courts are always vested with inherent and statutory

power  to  stay/restrain  the  execution  of  the  action

impugned in the lis during pendency of the lis. These

powers are contained in Order 39 Rules 1and 2, and

Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

46. This  Court  in  Mulraj  vs.  Murti  Raghunathji

Maharaj,  AIR 1967 SC 1386  had the occasion to

take  note  of  this  well  settled  principle  wherein

Justice  K.N.  Wanchoo  speaking  for  the  Bench

explained the subtle distinction between the grant of

injunction and stay and explained the effect of both

including consequence after their termination.

47. Keeping in view this well settled principle, which

we need not elaborate herein, we are of the view that

the Division Bench was not right in observing that so

24

Page 25

long as the order of disqualification was not set aside,

it remained operative.  

48. In  our  considered  view,  the  Division  Bench

failed to see that so long as the final adjudication is

not  done  in  accordance  with  law on merits  in  the

election petitions, the District Court was vested with

the  power  to  pass  appropriate  interim  orders  in

relation to the impugned action under Section 22-A

of the Act which reads as under:

“22-A Bar of  jurisdiction: No order passed or proceedings taken under the provisions of this Act, shall be called in question in any Court, in any  suit,  or  application,  and  no  injunction shall be granted by any Court  except District Court in respect of any action taken or about to  be  taken  in  pursuance  of  any  power conferred by or under this Act.” (Emphasis supplied)

49. The Division Bench also failed to appreciate that

once writ petitions filed by the appellant herein were

allowed  on  07.11.2014  by  suspending  the

proceedings dated 11.08.2014, the respondents had

25

Page 26

no option but to allow the appellant to function as

the Chairman of ZPP.

50. Similarly the Division Bench was also not right

in giving an illustration quoted above in support of

the impugned order. In our opinion, the illustration

is wholly misplaced and has nothing to do with the

short question involved herein.

51. Now  coming  to  the  issue,  we  find  that

indisputably  though  the  District  Court  declined  to

grant any injunction to the appellant for grant of any

interim order  in  his  favour  but  the  learned  Single

Judge by order dated 7.11.2014 in W.P.Nos. 30790 of

2014 had stayed the operation of the disqualification

order  dated  11.8.2014  passed  by  the  District

Collector.

52. In  our  considered  opinion,  the  effect  of  the

suspension  order  dated  07.11.2014  of  the  learned

Single Judge was that the appellant's disqualification

26

Page 27

from  the  post  of  member  of  ZPTC  and  the

Chairperson  of  ZPP  was  kept  in  abeyance  till  the

disposal of the election petitions. In other words, no

effect  was  to  be  given  to  the  appellant's

disqualification in relation to his status as member

and the Chairperson till the disposal of the election

petitions.  

53. It is also not in dispute that the learned Single

Judge  simultaneously  in  other  two  pending  writ

petitions (W.P.No.31113 of 2014 and W.P.No.36421

of  2014)  by  separate  interim  orders  one  dated

12.11.2014 and other dated 28.11.2014  had stayed

the  order  dated  12.08.2014  by  which  the  Vice-

Chairperson  of  the  ZPP  was  asked  to  assume  the

charge of the post of Chairperson and this stay was

in operation.

54. In the light of these undisputed facts, we are of

the view that there was no legal impediment for the

27

Page 28

appellant  to  have  assumed  the  post  of  the

Chairperson,  ZPP, Prakasam District,  which he did

assume on 08.11.2014 pursuant to the order dated

07.11.2014  of  the  learned  Single  Judge.  Once  the

appellant assumed the office of the Chairperson, the

Division  Bench  should  have  dismissed  the

interlocutory  applications  as  having  rendered

infructuous  because  the  prayer  made  therein,

namely, to restrain the appellant from assuming the

office  of  the  Chairperson  and  asking  the

vice-Chairperson  to  assume  the  charge  of  the

Chairperson  was  already  implemented  prior  to

consideration of  the applications and there was no

apparent justification to oust the appellant from the

post of  Chairperson by another interim order.

55. In our considered opinion, the impugned order

of  the  Division  Bench  in  directing  removal  of  the

appellant  from the post  of  Chairperson and asking

28

Page 29

the Vice-Chairperson to take over the charge of the

Chairperson in his place is not only untenable in law

but also perverse.

56. Though learned senior counsel for the appellant

also urged the issues relating to legality of the whip

issued by the TDP contending  inter alia that it was

not in conformity with the requirements of Rules etc.

but we refrain from going into this question at this

stage  in  these  appeals  for  the  simple  reason  that

these issues are sub judiced in the election petitions

and hence need to be tried by the District  Judge on

merits  in  accordance  with  law  as  directed  by  the

learned Single Judge vide order dated 7.11.2014.   

57. This takes us to the last submission urged by

the learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 that

impugned order being interim in nature, this Court

should not interfere in the same under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India. We do not agree with this

29

Page 30

submission.  

58. In  our  considered  view,  if  we  find  that  the

reasoning given by the High Court while passing the

interim order  is perverse and legally unsustainable

being against the settled principle of law laid down by

this  Court  then  interference  of  this  Court  in  such

order  is  called  for  regardless  of  the  nature  of  the

order impugned in appeal.  

59. In  this  case,  having  noticed  that  the  two

reasonings extracted above are wholly unsustainable

being against the well settled principle of  law, it  is

necessary for this Court to interfere.   

60. The fate of the appellant about his membership

and  Chairpersonship  would  depend  upon  the

outcome of the election petitions.

61. Let  the  election  petitions  be  decided  within  3

months as an outer limit from the date of this Court.

62. In  view  of  foregoing  discussion,  the  appeals

30

Page 31

succeed and are accordingly allowed. Impugned order

is  set  aside.  As  a  consequence,  all  the  pending

appeals/petitions  before  the High Court  also stand

finally  disposed  of  in  the  light  of  this  judgment

because  there  remains  nothing  for  the  High Court

now to decide in pending appeals/writ petitions.

S.L.P.(c) Nos. 5896-5897 of 2015

In view of the detailed judgment passed in the

appeals @ S.L.P.(c) Nos. 36764 of 2014 and 36773 of

2014, these special leave petitions stand disposed of

accordingly.

                  ………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]

                 …...……..................................J.   [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi; September 15, 2015.     

31