THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR W.A.NO.3 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: ( Per NRR,J) This writ appeal is directed against the interlocutory order passed allowing W.P.M.P.No.31227 of 2010 in W.P.No.24392 of 2010. The first respondent in this appeal preferred the said Writ Petition No. 24392 of 2010 calling in question the correctness and validity of an order passed by the Election Tribunal in Election O.P.No.2 of 2006. The said Election OP has been preferred by the appellant herein. To cut short the long history of the case, suffice it to notice that the first respondent herein has preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 5328 of 2009 against the interlocutory order passed on 11-09-2009 in I.A.No.41 of 2009 by the Election Tribunal. It will be important to notice that while upholding the order under revision, this Court directed the Election Tribunal to fix a date for re- counting of votes in the premises of the Court itself under its supervision and with the assistance of the election staff, duly addressing a letter to the District Collector to depute an experienced person for the said purpose. This Court also directed the objections, if any, raised by the revision petitioner or the first respondent - petitioner in the Election OP to be taken into account before the result of re-counting is declared. That order was passed on 19.04.2010. Subsequently, the first respondent herein has once again filed C.R.P.No.3099 of 2010 against an order dated 17.7.2010. While dismissing the said Civil Revision Petition on 23.8.2010, this Court directed the Election Tribunal to verify the objections raised by the parties as to the observations made by the District Panchayat Officer in relation to the validity or otherwise of the votes and to pass final orders in Election OP No.2 of 2006 within one week from the said date. Thus, the Election Tribunal was put on a tight time frame limit by this Court, by its order dated 23.8.2010 passed in CRP No.3099 of 2010 to decide the Election OP itself on merits. Accordingly, the Election Tribunal has decided the Election OP by its judgment dated 30.08.2010. The finding recorded by the Election Tribunal is that by virtue of the re-counting process, the appellant herein is declared to have secured 251 votes as against 248 by the first respondent herein. Hence, the Election Tribunal has set aside the election of the first respondent and declared the appellant herein to have been elected as the Sarpanch of Kondayapalli Village, Kamalapuram Mandal, Kadapa District. In view of the judgment rendered by the Election Tribunal on 30.08.2010, when the appellant approached the District Collector, the latter passed orders on 15.9.2010, directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kamalapuram to take the necessary follow up action. Accordingly, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer administered oath of office to the appellant herein on 16.09.2010 at 11.00 a.m. at Mandal Parishad High School. Thus, the appellant started functioning as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat with effect from 16.09.2010, whereas Writ Petition No.24392 of 2010 has been preferred by the first respondent subsequently on 29.09.2010. Therefore, it is contended that the balance of convenience is lying in favour of the appellant herein, inasmuch as he was functioning as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat by the time the writ petition itself has come to be instituted in this Court. He has been declared as elected by a properly constituted Election Tribunal. In normal circumstances, a party, who has succeeded in an Election OP should be permitted to reap the fruits of the said success, particularly when the lis itself has been raised subsequent to his being administered the oath of office and started functioning as a Sarpanch. Therefore, in our opinion, balance of convenience is lying heavily in favour of the appellant and not in favour of the first respondent. The W.P.M.P., therefore, preferred by the first respondent herein seeking suspension of the operation of the order passed on 30.08.2010 in Election OP ought not to have been ordered. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 28.12.2010 passed in WPMP No.31227 of 2010 in WP No.24392 of 2010 and dismiss the said WPMP. It is appropriate that the writ petition should be heard as expeditiously as possible. Hence, let it be listed for final hearing on 21.03.2011. With this, the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. _____________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J _________________ K.G.SHANKAR,J Rkk/Ksld Dated: 5-1-2010