EDARA HARIBABU versus TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS.
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 773, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Body
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 773 
EDARA HARi BABU 
v. 
TULLURI VENKATA NARASIMHAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7115 of2015) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
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. 
c 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
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. 
1967 SCR 84 
Case Law Reference 
relied on. 
Para 46 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
G 
7115 of 2015 
H
776 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 
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 
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. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AB HAY 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 
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. 
H 
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these
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. 
E 
26. On 12.11.2014, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO}, 
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 
c 
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. 
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 
E 
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 
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. 
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 
A 
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? 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
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 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
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 
4
7. 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: 
c 
D 
"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 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. 
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 
G 
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 
D 
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. 
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 
. 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. 
B 
Devika Gujral 
Appeals allowed. C