IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 236 of 2010 Date of decision: 20 .09.2010 Jaswant Singh Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Addl. A.G. Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st June, 2010 whereby the application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) has been rejected and the suit alongwith its documents ordered to be returned to the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit before the learned trial Court wherein he prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering in the smooth working of the Krishak Vikas Sangh Bhathal Polian (hereinafter referred to as the Sangh) under the garb of letter No. Agr.SCH(H)6- 8/2001-Vol-XIV dated 17th March, 2010 issued by the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 defendant No.2. It is apparent that the petitioner was compelled to file the suit because of the issuance of the letter dated 17th March, 2010, operative portion of which read as follows:- “From Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh To The Dy. Director of Agriculture, Palampur, Distt. Kangra, Himachal Pradesh Dated: Shimla 171 005 the Subject: Execution of Water Harvesting Structure, Bathal Polian, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. fair election of KVS as per RIDF guidelines thereof. Memo: The resolution received from residents of village Bathal Polian, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Kangra through Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Nagal, Development Block Fatehpur, District Kangra, H.P. is being enclosed herewith in original with the directions to conduct the fair election of KVS Bathal Polian as per RIDF guidelines by holding the General House Meeting of beneficiaries of above said schemes immediately under intimation to this Directorate, so that the execution of this scheme could be done smoothly and resentment prevailing amongst the farmers is avoided. Suitable time for information of general public may be given but the process of holding elections should be completed before 7th April, 2010. Encl: as above. Director of Agriculture, Himachal Pradesh.” 3 3. According to the plaintiff, elections to the Sangh were held on 30th July, 2009 and therefore the order dated 17th March, 2010 was not legal and valid. This Court at this stage is not going into the merits of the contentions raised by the plaintiff, the defendants or the persons who wanted to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. Rightly or wrongly the plaintiff wanted that the respondents be restrained from implementing the letter dated 17th March, 2010. As per this letter, process of elections was to be completed before 7th April, 2010 i.e. within a period of 20 days. Therefore, it is obvious that no notice under Section 80 wherein a minimum period of 60 days to be given should have been issued. The learned trial Court totally erred in holding that the application under Section 80(2) was not maintainable only on the ground that till the date of passing of the order i.e. 21st June, 2010 nothing had been done by the respondents-State. It is not the date of the passing of the order which is material but the date of the filing of the suit which is material. Could the petitioner have filed the suit after complying with the provisions of Section 80 on the relevant date. The obvious answer would be no. He would have had to wait for atleast two months thereafter and elections would have been held in the meantime. 4 4. I may make it clear that I am not in any way indicating that the petitioner has to be granted interim relief. This is something for the trial Court to decide on its own merits after hearing the parties totally uninfluenced by the observations made hereinabove. But it cannot be denied that there was urgency in filing the suit at this stage. Therefore, the learned trial Court gravely erred in dismissing the application under Order 80 and returning the plaint. Therefore, the order dated 21st June, 2010 is set-aside. The application under Order 80 Rule 2 is allowed and now the learned trial Court shall proceed to decide the application for grant of interim relief in accordance with law totally uninfluenced by any observations made here-in-above. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 20th October, 2010. The Registry is directed to return the record of the learned trial Court so as to reach well before the next date. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 20th September, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™