EDARA HARIBABUversusTULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.

                    [2015] 12 S.C.R. 773


                     EDARA HARi BABU                                 A
                               v.
        TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 7115 of2015)
                                                                     B
                   SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
                 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND
              ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
      Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994: s. 22-A -              c
Respondent no. 1 appointed as whip on behalf of TOP in
respect to election to the office of Chairperson and Vice-
Chairperson of ZPP - Respondent no. 1 then issued a whip.
directing all ZPTC members beionging to TOP to vote in
favour of one 'M' for office of Chairperson and one 'P' for office   D
of Vice-Chairperson of ZPP - Election was conducted and
appellant contested election as independent candidate and
cast his vote in his own favour-Appellant was then elected
as Chairperson defeating the candidate proposed by TDP-
Comp/aint by respondent no. 1 against appellant before               E
District Collector alleging that he violated the whips issued
by TOP - District Collector disqualified the appellant as
member of ZPTC and directed him to vacate the office of
Chairperson - CEO directed Vice-Chairperson to temporarily
take over charge of the office of Cfwirperson until a new            F
Chairperson is duly elected - High Court suspended the
order of CEO - By interim order, Division Bench directed
Vice-Chairperson to discharge the functions of the
Chairperson until further orders and further restrained the
respondents from filling up the vacancy of Chairperson and           G
a/so. directed District Judge to decide the pending election
petitions within 3 months - Propriety of interim order- Held:
 The impugned order of the Division Bench in directing
removal of the appellant from the post of Chairperson and            H
                                773
774       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.

A asking the Vice-Chairperson to take over the charge of the
  Chairperson in his place is not only untenable in law but also
  perverse - 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
B the power to pass appropriate interim orders in relation to
  the impugned action u/s.22-A of the Act - Interim order-
  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0r.39 rr.1. and 2; Or.41 r.5.

         Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
       HELD: 1. 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
o powers are contained in Order 39 Rules 1and 2, and
  Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC. 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
E appropriate interim orders in relat.ion to the impugned
  action under Section 22-A of the Act. The Division Bench
  also failed to appreciate that once writ petitions filed.by
  the appellant were allowed on 07.11.2014 by suspending
  the proceedings dated 11.08.2014, the respondents had
F no option but to allow the appellant to function as the
  Chairman ofZPP. [Paras 45, 48 and 49] [787-E; 788·-A-B,
  D-E]                            ~

        2. The effect of the suspension order dated
G 07.11.2014 of the Single Judge was that the appellant's
  disqualification 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
H relation to his status as member and the Chairperson till
EDARAHARIBABU v. TULLURIVENKATANARASIMHAM 775


the disposal of the election petitions. The Single Judge A
simultaneously in other two pending writ petitions 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 B
stay was in operation. In the light of these undisputed
facts, there was no legal impediment for the appellant to
have assumed the post of the Chairperson, ZPP which
he did assume on 08.11.2014 pursuant to the order dated
07.11.2014 of the Single Judge. Once the appellant C ·
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
                                                            0
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 E
 of Chairperson by another interim order. If 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 then interference of
 this Court in such order is called for regardless of the F
 nature of the order impugned in appeal. [Paras 52 to 55,
 58) [788-H; 789-A-G; 790-D-E]
     Mu/raj vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj AIR 1967
     SC 1386: 1967 SCR 84- relied on.
                                                          G
                  Case Law Reference
1967 SCR 84               relied on.         Para 46
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7115 of 2015                                              H
776        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A          From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2014 of the
      High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of
      Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.M.P. No.
      3416/2014 in W.A. No. 1386/2014
                                WITH
B
          C.A. No. 7116of2015
          And
          SLP (C) No. 5896-5897 of 2015

C      P.P. Rao, B.Adinarayana,A.K. Ganguli, Sr.Advs., Ms. Y.
  Vismai Rao, M. Karthik Pavan Kumar, Hitender Nath Rath, P.
  Govindaiah, Sandeep Singh, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Ms. Prerna
  Singh, G. Pramod Kumar, Prashant Chaudhary, Venkateswara
  Rao Anumolu, Goli Ramakrishna, Shaswat Goel, Guntur
D Prabhakar, Advs., with them for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          AB HAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. In S.L.P. (C) Nos. 36764/
      2014 & 36773/2014
E
          1. Leave granted.

         2. These appeals are filed against the common interim
  order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the High Court of
F Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the
  State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.M.P. No. 3416 of2014 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-
G 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.

          3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these
H
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM 777
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

appeals, which lie in a narrow compass, it is necessary to state   A
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 B
Manda!, Prakasam District. He had contested this election
as a candidate of Telugu Desam Party (in short "TOP") 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 C
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.                                     D

     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.                                         E

     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.                        F

        7. On 09.07.2014, the State President of the TOP
  addressed a letter to the State Election Commission
  (respondent No.3) informing that one Shri Bonda Uma
  Maheswara Rao, General Secretary of the TOP, is authorized G
  to issue Form-A and Form-B as prescribed in Rule 22(1) of
  theAndhra Pradesh Conduct of Election of Member (Co-opted),
  President and Vice-President of Manda! Parishad and
. Members (Co-opted), Chairperson and Vice~Chairperson of
  Zila Parishad Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "The H
778       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.
                                                     I


A 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-
s 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.

C        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 as whip on behalf of the TDP in relation to the
  election to the office of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of
D 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
E 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,
F 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 seNed with the
  copy of two whips which were alleged to have been issued.
  He also alleged that his signature acknowledging receipt of
G 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,
H ZPP, Prakasam District as an "independent candidate" and
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VENKATA NARASHy1HAM 779
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
                               \

cast his vote in his own favour and in favour of one S11ri N. A
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
TOP as a candidate to the post of Chairperson.                B

         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) all~ging inter afia that he was appointed C
   as a whip by the TOP 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 TOP on
   12.07.2014 and 13.07.2014.
                                                                       D
       · 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 E
   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 afia that he had not violated the whips. F
It was also his case that he had not received any whip and his
signatures on the whips' receipts were eitherfake or fabricated
by someone. He also stated that he was at Hyderabad from
07.07.2014 to 12.07.2014 and hence did not receive the
alleged whips even if issued. He. therefore, prayed the District G
Collector-cum-Presiding Officer (respondent No.2) to conduct
a detailed inquiry in the matter.

       14. By order dated 11.08.2014 in Re.No. P1/4598-
 lndirect election/13, the Presiding Officer & District Collector,    H
780       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A 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
8 "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.

c       16. Challenging the order dated 11.08.2014 passed by
  the Presiding Officer & District Collector, Prakasam District,
  Ongole, the appellant filed W.P.No. 23541of2014 before the
  High Court. Vide order dated 22.08.2014, the High Court
  dismissed the petition granting liberty to the petitioner therein
D to approa~h the District Court by taking recourse to the remedy
  available under Section 181-A of the Act.

        17. Theappellantaccordinglyfiled E.O.P. No. 8of2014
  and E.O.P. No. 9 of 2014 before the 1st Additional District
E Judge, Ongole against the order dated 11.08.2014 passed
  by the Presiding Officer on the grounds pleaded therein. He
  also filed l.A.Nos.1697 of 2014 in E.O.P No. 8/2014 and
  l.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
F by the Presiding Officer, Ongole in Re. No. P1/4598-lndirect
  Election/8. By orders dated 07.10.2014, the 1st Additional
  District Judge dismissed the said I.As. and declined to grant
  injunction prayed by the appellant.

G      18. Questioning thf? order dated 07 .10.2014 passed by
  the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole, in I.A. No. 1697 of
  2014 in E.O.P. No. 8 of2014 & I.A.No. 1684 of2014 in E.O.P.
  No. 9 of2014, the appellant filed W.P. Nos. 30790 and 30791
  of 2014 before the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for
H the State ofTelangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.
EDARAHARIBABU v. TULLURIVENKATANARASIMHAM 781
         [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

      19. In view of the disqualification of the appellant herein, A
a representation was submitted by Mr. Garinipudi Steeven &
24 others on 28.08.2014 to the State Election Commission
and the pi~trict Collector-cum-Presiding Officer for conducting
fresh elections. Since the said application was not being
consid~red by the State Election Commission, the abovesaid B
petitioners filed W.P. No. 30799 of2014 before the High Court.

      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 C
and 30791 of2014 filed by the appellant herein and quashed
the order dated 07.10.2014 passed by the 1st 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 D
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.
                                                                   E
     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-Presid ing Officer, Prakasam District regarding
disqualification of his membership as ZPTC and also F
Chairperson of ZPP was suspended vide order dated
07.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court irl W.P. Nos. 39790 and 30791 of 2014 and hence the
appellant be allowed to resume the office of the Chairperson,
ZPP. Prakasam District.                                       G

      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.            H
782        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A        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
 B Chairperson consequent upon declaration of appellant's
   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
 C    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-
 D    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},
 E
   ZPP addressed a letter in Re. No.P1/4598/High Court Cases/
   2013 to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural
   Development stating that pursuant to the order dated
   07 .11 .2014 passed by the High Court, the appellant has
 F 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
 G 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
 H send a legal notice to the CEO to ensure compliance of the
EDARA
 ,    HARi BABU v. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM 783
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge A
and co-operate with the appellant to enable hiin to discharge
the duties as Chairperson and forthwith withdraw the
clarification letter dated 12.11.2014 sent by him to the
Commissioner, which according to appellant was not at all
necessary.                                                    B

     . 28. On 14.11.2014, the appellant also address~d 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 C
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       o
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 E
the Chairperson pursuant to the final 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 F
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 G
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
dated12.11.2014.                                                H
. 784         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


  A          31. Against the said orders, i.~. order dated 12.11.2014
        passed in W.P.No. 31113.of2014 and order dated 28.11.2014
        passed in Writ Petition No. 36241/2014, two writ appeals
        bearing W.A. Nos. 1484 and 1485 of 2014 were preferred.

  B          32. On 01.12.2014, the appellant filed application bearing
        WAMP No. 3690 of2014 in W.A. No. 1386/2014 and W.A.M.P.
        No. 3691.of2014 in W.A. No. 1388of2014 intera/ia praying
        for considering the additional documents in support of his
        contention that there is no vacancy forthe post of Chairperson.
  c
          33. By impugned interim order dated 10.12.2014 passed
    in W.A.M.P. No. 3416of2014 in W.A. No.1386of2014 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
  D 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 Election Petitions within three
    months and posted the appeals for hearing after two months.
  E
          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
  F 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.
  G 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
  H applications had virtually become infructuous and hence were
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VEN KATA NARASIMHAM 785
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

liable to be dismissed as such.                                    A

      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 B
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   c.
been given while disposing of the appeal/application by the
Divis(on Bench was to decide the appellant's election petitions
by the 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole on merits
expeditiously.

      38. Learned Counsel further contended that even D
 assuming that the High Court could go into the 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 E
 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 TOP in relation
to the election in question were not legal because it did not F
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 G
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 supporting the impugned
                                                                   H
786       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D
         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
 E       further steps to fill up the 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
 F       communication of this order.
             These two appeals will come up for hearing
         two months hence.
               WAMPs are ordered accordingly."
 G             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
 H       operative. Unlike the Court, the Collector has no
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VEN KATA NARASIMHAM 787
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

     power to grant an order of injunction. In our view, A
     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 B
     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 C
     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 two
findings are not legally sustainable for the reasons mentioned D
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 /is during pendency E
      .
of the /is. These powers are contained in Order 39 Rules 1
and 2 and Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908.

      46. This Court in Mulraj vs. Murti Raghunathji Maharaj, F
AIR 1967 SC 1386 had the occasion to take-note ofthis well
settled principle wherein Justice K:N. Wanchoo speaking for
the Bench explained the ~ubtle distinction between the grant
of injunction and stay and explained the effect of both including
consequence after their termination.                              G

     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 long as the order of
disqualification was not set aside, it remained operative.      H
788        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  {2015] 12 S.C.R.


A        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
 B 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,
c         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)
 D
         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 no option but to allow the appellant to
 E 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
 F has nothing to do with the short question involved herein.

        51. Now coming to the issue, we find that indisputably
   thou!~h the District Court declined to grant any injunction to the
   appellant for grant of any interim order in his favour but the
 G learned Single Judge by order dated 7.11.2014 in W.P.Nos.
   30790 of2014 had stayed th.e operation of the disqualification
   order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the District Collector.

        52. In our considered opinion, the effect of the suspension
 H order dated 07.11.2014 of the learned Single Judge was that
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM 789
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

the appellant's disqualification from the post of member of A
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.                                            B

      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 C
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.
                                                                  D
      54. In the light of these undisputed facts, we are of the
view that there was no legal impediment for the appellant to
have assumed the post of the Chairper~on, 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 E
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- F
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.
                                                                  G
      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 the Vice-Chairperson to take
over the charge of the Chairperson in his place is not only
untenable in law but also perverse.                               H
790         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.,


A       56. Though learned senior counsel forthe 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
B 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.

C          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 submission.
 D
         58. In our considered view, if we find thatthe 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
 E 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
 F 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
 G 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 succeed
 H and are accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As
EDARA HARi BABU v. TULLURI VEN KATA NARASIMHAM 791
           [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

a consequence, all the p~nding appeals/petitions before the A
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 of2015                                 B
    .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.

Devika Gujral                                Appeals allowed.   C