JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. 1. The main issues that needs to be addressed by this Court are whether in the facts of the present case, an ad interim injunction could have been granted. 2. The present lis is in respect of an election to the executive body of All Kurung Kumey District Students Union (AKKDSU) for the Session 2024-27, wherein, the appellants No. 1 to 27, were declared elected unopposed to various posts in the executive body of AKKDSU, vide election results, dated 28.09.2024. 3. The fact of the case is that on 14.09.2024 the president of the All Arunachal Pradesh Students Union (AAPSU) issued an order directing the president of AKKDSU to conduct fresh election on or before 15.10.2024. In pursuant to the same, the president of AKKDSU issued an order, dated 20.09.2024, dissolving the then executive council members of AKKDSU. Thereafter, the president of AKKDSU issued an appointment order, dated 21.09.2024, appointing profoma respondent Nos. 3 to 6 as the Chief Election Commissioner, Returning Officer, Presiding Officer and the Polling Officer, respectively, with a direction to conduct the election by notifying the election schedule, venue and the other election process. Thereafter, various notifications were issued for complying with the processes involved. However, on 24.09.2024, the Deputy Commissioner recalled the election on the ground of violating the conditions mentioned in the permission order by Defendant No. 1. However, the Defendant No. 1, issued a notification, dated 25.09.2024, declaring that the election would be held at AKKDSU office, Koloriang, District Kurung Kumey, Arunachal Pradesh on 24.09.2024 and 28.09.2024 but again, the Deputy Commissioner prohibited the Defendant No. 1 to hold the election vide order, dated 26.09.2024 on the ground of law and order problem in the said District but on the same day, at around 11 am, a meeting was held between the In-Charge Deputy Commissioner as well as all the stake holders and it was decided that in case, the election is held, all the said stake holders would maintain peace and tranquillity. As such, vide order dated 27.09.2024, the prohibitory order was revoked. Thereafter, the Defendant No. 1, issued notification for holding the election on 28.09.2024 and 29.09.2024, and thereafter, on 28.09.2024 the results were declared showing all the appellants elected as unopposed. Thereafter, on 29.09.2024 the oath was administered to the elected candidates. 4. As such, vide order dated 27.09.2024, the prohibitory order was revoked. Thereafter, the Defendant No. 1, issued notification for holding the election on 28.09.2024 and 29.09.2024, and thereafter, on 28.09.2024 the results were declared showing all the appellants elected as unopposed. Thereafter, on 29.09.2024 the oath was administered to the elected candidates. 4. After the declaration of the said results, a title suit was filed by two numbers of plaintiffs, namely Shri. Chera Tasung and Shri. Kipa Tamar before the Court of Senior Judge (Senior Division) in April, 2025, ventilating their grievance that they were bonafide students and were eligible to contest for the post of President and General Secretary respectively in the notified 7 General Election 2024 of AKKDSU. They submitted that there was no free and fair election and no proper representation was not done and as such, they prayed that the said election be declared null and void and that a fresh election to be held. Along with the said plaint a miscellaneous application was filed i.e. Misc. Case No. 16/2025, by which the plaintiffs prayed for suspending and staying the operation of the results dated 28.09.2024 and also, for restraining the appellants to hold their respective post in view of the results. It is noticed that the plaintiffs had placed reliance on an order passed by the In-charge Deputy Commissioner on 27.09.2024 by which the election notification issued by the Chief Election Commissioner dated 25.09.2024 regarding holding of election on 27th and 28th of September, 2024 was cancelled. 5. That the said Misc. Case was listed before the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ziro, District Lower Subansiri on 05.05.2025. The plaintiff before the said Court, prayed for grant of temporary injunction by way of suspending the operation of the election results mainly on the following grounds: (a). On the day fixed for election, no election took place in view of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 27.09.2024. (b). The notification issued by the Defendant No. 1 to hold election on 28th and 29th September, 2024, was illegal and that the results declared was also illegal. (c). The civil rights of the petitioners to participate in free and fair election was curtailed. (d). There was a fight between the petitioner and respondent and that the AAPSU had suspended AKKDSU till further order. (e). (c). The civil rights of the petitioners to participate in free and fair election was curtailed. (d). There was a fight between the petitioner and respondent and that the AAPSU had suspended AKKDSU till further order. (e). The plaintiff No. 1 could not approach the court in time since he was banned for 6 years and the band was revoked later and he approached the court. (d). The three Golden Principles for injunction were satisfied in the instant case. 6. The defendants/appellants had raised the following grounds before the Trial Court, (a). The petitioners had no locus standi, (b). Plaintiffs had not approached the court with clean hands, (c). The petitioners could challenge only part of the results, (d). No nomination papers were submitted by the petitioners, (e). Revocation order was interpreted wrongly and the ban on Plaintiff No. 1 was not revoked. 7. The learned Court on prima facie satisfaction that there was violation of election Rules and Regulations, returned the finding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case. Further, on the submission that if the results are allowed to stand, it may illegitimately instal office bearers of AKKDSU. The court further referred the other analogous case where injunction was granted. Furthermore, the Trial Court also observed that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss on the ground as raised by the plaintiffs that they would become over aged to participate in the future election. The learned Court therefore, granted ad interim injunction by suspending the operation and validity of the election results, vide Order dated 05.05.2025, till final disposal of the suit. The Trial Court further ordered that the present case may be listed along with the analogous case. 8. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before this Court that election was lawfully held and conducted in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the union and in absence of any rival contestants for various posts, the appellants were declared unopposed as per the established procedure. Furthermore, he stated that the plaintiffs had not filed their nominations and that Plaintiff No. 1 was debarred from contesting elections and plaintiff No. 2 had not filed his nominations to the said election and as such they cannot turn around and file the plaint raising various allegations therein. Furthermore, he stated that the plaintiffs had not filed their nominations and that Plaintiff No. 1 was debarred from contesting elections and plaintiff No. 2 had not filed his nominations to the said election and as such they cannot turn around and file the plaint raising various allegations therein. As such, he stated that the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the plaint or to challenge the entire election. He further stated that apart from the three Golden Principles governing the law of interim injunction, the conduct of the plaintiffs are also required to be considered. 9. Mr. Sonar further submitted that since the election was conducted in compliance with the laws of the Union and in absence of any evidence that the plaintiffs’ rights were violated, there was no prima facie case on behalf of the plaintiffs. He further submitted that since the oath taking ceremony was over, and the tenure of the executive body was only for 3 (three) years and for the fact that the parent body has recognised the election, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellants. Mr. Sonar further submitted that restraining the appellants from functioning in their elected capacity would cause irreparably injury to them and that the claim of the plaintiffs that they would be over aged was purely speculative and substantiative inasmuch as the appellants as well as the plaintiffs are of same ages. Mr. Sonar, thereafter, stated that even in facts of the case, the plaintiffs have come with unclean hands since they stated that the parent body i.e. AAPSU had not granted recognition to the newly elected body. He also stated that plaint suffered from non-joinder of parties. Mr.Sonar further stated that plaintiff No. 1 was barred from contesting any election for 6 (six) years by the parent body i.e. AAPSU in view of the fact that plaintiff No. 1 had assaulted one worker of the Union and plaintiff No. 2 had never enrolled himself for the election and as such, both the plaintiffs had no locus to file the title suit challenging the election. Further, defendant Nos. 6 & 31 had also not filed any nomination for contesting in the instant election. 10. To substantiate the arguments, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel referred to the following Judgments: (a). M/S Contemporary Target Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S MB Enterprise & Ors. reported in 1994 (1) GLR 259 (b). Further, defendant Nos. 6 & 31 had also not filed any nomination for contesting in the instant election. 10. To substantiate the arguments, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel referred to the following Judgments: (a). M/S Contemporary Target Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S MB Enterprise & Ors. reported in 1994 (1) GLR 259 (b). Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 (c). Dalpat Kumar Vs. Prahlad Singh, reported in (1992) 1 SCC 719 (d). V. Palanisamy Vs. Shanmugha & Ors., reported in 2009(6)CTC 774 judgment delivered by High Court of Madras. (e). Md. Saifullah Wakf Estate & Anr. Vs. Sara Devi Agarwalla Alias Madania , reported in (1995) 1 GLR 43 11. On the other hand, Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents have submitted that after the notification, dated 20.09.2024 was issued for enrolment of voters, many aspiring candidates had approached the president of AAPSU stating inter alia that the by-laws of AKKDSU were restructured to favour certain candidates by Defendant No. 1 and that in view of the said complaint, the caretaker president AKKDSU, vide order dated 23.09.2024, issued an order directing the Defendant No. 1 to consider the grievances raised by the aspiring candidates. They further stated that the Deputy Commissioner on 24.09.2024, recalled the election on the ground that Defendant No. 1 had breached the condition in granting permission to conduct election and that Defendant No. 1 by illegal use of power ordered that even those students who are not enrolled can vote on spot verification by polling agent. The respondents also stated the Deputy Commissioner vide order, dated 27.09.2024, had prohibited Defendant No. 1 from holding any election at Koloriang but that hastily, the Defendant No. 1 issued a notification for holding elections on 28th & 29th of September, 2024 and by demanding passport photos and signatures in the nomination papers, declared the results on 28.09.2024. 12. In view of the said brief facts, this Court is called upon to adjudicate as to whether the order, dated 05.05.2025, by which the learned Court granted the ad interim injunction, suspending and staying the operation of the election results, dated 28.09.2024, were correct in the eyes of law. 13. 12. In view of the said brief facts, this Court is called upon to adjudicate as to whether the order, dated 05.05.2025, by which the learned Court granted the ad interim injunction, suspending and staying the operation of the election results, dated 28.09.2024, were correct in the eyes of law. 13. It is a settled position of law that before a party can be mandatorily injuncted to do or to refrain from doing a particular thing, 3 (three) golden principles are required to be followed by the Courts: (a). a prima facie case which requires placing of materials on record by the party concerned, which would show that the said party would succeed in final determination of the case; (b) balance of convenience which necessitates that prejudice likely to be caused to the party or the plaintiff due to the rejection of the interim order will be higher than the inconvenience caused to the defendant, if the same is granted; and (c). Irreparable injury which means that if the relief is not granted then the plaintiff would suffer injury that cannot be compensated in monetary terms. In this connection, this Court refers to the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Union of India , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 183 “…12. The globally acknowledged golden principles, collectively known as the Triple-Test, are followed by the Courts across the jurisdictions as the pre- requisites before a party can be mandatorily injuncted to do or to refrain from doing a particular thing. These three cardinal factors, that are deeply embedded in the Indian jurisprudence as well, are: (a) A 'Prima facie case', which necessitates that as per the material placed on record, the Plaintiff is likely to succeed in the final determination of the case; (b) 'Balance of convenience', such that the prejudice likely to be caused to the Plaintiff due to rejection of the interim relief will be higher than the inconvenience that the Defendant may face if the relief is so granted; and (c) 'Irreparable injury', which means that if the relief is not granted, the Plaintiff will face an irreversible injury that cannot be compensated in monetary terms.” 14. Further the Apex Court in the decision of Morgan Stanely vs. Kartick Das , reported in (1994) 4 SCC 225 , had observed in the following words: “…As a principle, ex-parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the Court in the grant of ex-parte injunction are: (b). whether the refusal of ex-parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve; (c). the Court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented; (d). the Court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time application. (f). even if granted, the ex-parte injunction would be for a limited period of time. (g). General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the Court.” 15. A bare perusal of the aforesaid principles makes it crystal clear that if the plaintiff shows a prima facie case in his favour and can show the balance of convenience also in his favour and can show irreparable injury would be caused to him, he becomes entitled for an interim injunction order. 16. It is noticed that the respondents submitted before the Court that there was no election held on 28.09.2024 on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order cancelling the election by ordering the Police and the administration to execute and implement the same and that he has a prima facie case for suspending the operation of the results. 17. On 27th of September, 2024, the In-Charge Deputy Commissioner, passed an order that although by a previous notification, the election was stopped but by a meeting held on 26 of September, 2024, between the administration and all the stake holders, it was decided to revoke the cancellation order and it was further decided that all will maintain law and order, if the election is held. 18. Further, the Respondents have placed an order dated 27 of September, 2024 issued by the In-charge Deputy Commissioner, whereby, the election notification issued by the Chief Election Commissioner dated 25.09.2024 regarding holding of election on 27th and 28th of September, 2024, was cancelled. However, it is noticed that the said order was in respect of an earlier notification dated 25.09.2024. Further, the Respondents have placed an order dated 27 of September, 2024 issued by the In-charge Deputy Commissioner, whereby, the election notification issued by the Chief Election Commissioner dated 25.09.2024 regarding holding of election on 27th and 28th of September, 2024, was cancelled. However, it is noticed that the said order was in respect of an earlier notification dated 25.09.2024. On 26 of September, 2024 there was a meeting and the decision was altered. Further, in the notification, dated 27.09.2024, it was mentioned that election to be held on 27th & 28th of September, 2024, were cancelled. However, thereafter, there was change in the dates of election i.e. 28th & 29th of September, 2024. As such, prima facie, the said notification was in respect of earlier exercises. 19. Furthermore, the Chief Election Commissioner vide letter dated 29.09.2024 had intimated the President of AAPSU that the election of AKKDSU was conducted successfully on 28th of September, 2024 at Koloriang and by the said letter, the Chief Election Commissioner submitted the results. 20. It was also nothing in the records nor in the pleadings of the plaintiffs in the Title Suit that any aspiring candidate wanted to file his/her nomination but the same was not allowed. It is noticed that there were no other candidates for the posts of the Executive body of the Union. 21. In this context, Section 53(2) of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 may be referred to as the same provides the law as to what happens when a candidate is elected unopposed. Section 53 (2) is reproduced below: “ 53. Procedure in contested and uncontested elections: (1)…. (2). If the number of such candidates is equal to the number of seats to be filled, the returning officer shall forthwith declare all such candidates to be duly elected to fill those seats. .. (3)……..” 22. It goes without saying as it is apparent from the provision itself that if there are no contestant and there is only one candidate for one post, then the Returning Officer would forthwith declare that candidate as elected. This shows that there is no requirement of any voting in the election. Although similar provision is not provided for in the Constitution of AKKDSU but the same analogy would be applicable. 23. This shows that there is no requirement of any voting in the election. Although similar provision is not provided for in the Constitution of AKKDSU but the same analogy would be applicable. 23. The Apex Court is confronted with such a situation in a Public Interest Litigation filed by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, wherein, the petitioner had raised the issue of no voting in case of a candidate who does not have other contesting candidates in view of Section 53 (2) of the RP Act. The ground raised in the said PIL that even though there may not be any other contesting candidates but the provision of NOTA i.e. None of the above, will have significance and that at least the sole contestant should get some votes in his favour. The said matter is pending before the Apex Court and on the last occasion, vide order dated 24.04.2025, the Apex Court by allowing the Union of India to file counter-affidavit, fixed the matter on 24.07.2025. Since the main ground of challenge before the Apex Court in the aforesaid matter is the presence of the provision of NOTA, the same will not be applicable in the instant case. 24. In the present facts, all the appellants were elected unopposed. In such a case, the Returning Officer, who has the power to immediately announce the results has in fact, in the present case, announced the same and the results as such, were declared on 28.09.2024. Although, it is stated by the respondents that there were aspiring candidates but they have neither named them nor they placed nomination papers in respect of the said aspiring candidates. It is noticed in the records that no nomination papers were filed by any other candidates for any posts except the present appellants or the declared winners. As such, this Court is constrained to hold that the findings of the Trial Court that in absence of an election a prima facie case was established by the plaintiffs is incorrect in the eyes of law. 25. As such, this Court is constrained to hold that the findings of the Trial Court that in absence of an election a prima facie case was established by the plaintiffs is incorrect in the eyes of law. 25. As far as the second finding of the Trial Court is concerned that the balance of convenience also lies with the respondents, on the ground that if results are allowed to stand, it may illegitimately instal the office bearers, is again not sustainable in view of the fact that on 29.09.2024, the Chief Election Commissioner appointed for 7th General Election AKKDSU, 2024, wrote to the president of AAPSU intimating him that the election of AKKDSU has been conducted successfully on 28.09.2024 as stated above. He by the said letter had also submitted the election results to the president AAPSU and that thereafter, oath was administered on 29.09.2024, wherein, the Chief Election Officer, the Presiding Officer, the Polling Officer and the Returning Officer were present. 26. The further finding that the respondents would suffer irreparable loss if the operation of the results are not suspended on the ground that they will be over aged to contest in future elections, is also without any basis inasmuch as the age of the appellants and the respondents are almost same and the irreparable loss, if at all, would be suffered, by both the appellants and the respondents. 27. It is therefore, observed that all the 3 (three) principles required for granting ad interim injunction are not satisfied in the instant case. Further in the case of Kashi Nath Samsthan vs. Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy reported in (2010) 1 SCC 689 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the observation that if the party fails to make out a prima facie case to go for a trial, the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to party world not be material. The relevant portion from the said case is reproduced below: “…13. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. It is well settled that in order to obtain an order of injunction, the party who seeks for grant of such injunction has to prove that he has made out a prima facie case to go for trial, the balance of convenience is also in his favour and he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. But it is equally well settled that when a party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, question of considering the balance of convenience or irreparable loss and injury to the party concerned would not be material at all, that is to say, if that party fails to prove prima facie case to go for trial, it is not open to the Court to grant injunction in his favour even if, he has made out a case of balance of convenience being in his favour and would suffer irreparable loss and injury if no injunction order is granted.” 28. It is seen from the records of the case that plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 cannot contest the election for the post of the President and the General Secretary, respectively, in view of the provisions given in the constitution of the AKKDSU and as such, they had no locus to challenge the election by filing the Title Suit. 29. It is further noticed that the learned Court of Civil Judge, while making the order of ad interim injunction, had observed that in an analogous petition i.e in Misc. Case No. 42/2024, an ad interim injunction order was already passed on 01.10.2024 and that the said order was in force. The learned Trial Court, as such, granted temporary injunction order in favour of the plaintiffs and directed that the instant case may be listed together with the said analogous case. 30. In view of what has been stated above, the three Golden Principles for passing an ad interim injunction order was not followed and as such, the injunction order dated 05.05.2025, was bad in law. It is a settled position of law that only the said three Golden Principles should be considered and not orders passed in analogous petitions, which has been done in the instant case. 31. It is a settled position of law that only the said three Golden Principles should be considered and not orders passed in analogous petitions, which has been done in the instant case. 31. In view of the findings above, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court, while making the ad interim injunction order, till disposal of the suit had not discussed the three Golden Principles for grant of injunction, by properly considering the facts of the present case. 32. For the said view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 05.05.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ziro, in Title Suit No. 07/2025 is set aside and quashed. 33. It is further directed that the learned Trial Court may continue hearing the Title Suit being Title Suit No. 07/2025 and may dispose it of as early as possible. 34. This appeal is disposed of. Parties are left to bear their own cost(s).