Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040003352025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : CRP/15/2025 Lezen Gyadi Son of Late Gagung Gyadi, resident of Chimpu-I, O RK Mission, PS Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Ashok Doka and 11 Ors Son of Late Chapung, resident of Daat Village, Jollang, PO RK Mission, PS Chimpu, Itanagar, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Biki Tania @ Higang Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Biki Tacha a resident of Ganga Lake Road Itanagar PO RK Mission PS Chimpu Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Gokia Tame Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Gokia Tagung a resident of Lorr Nallah Near Biological Park (Zoo) PO RK Mission PS Chimpu Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Yurum Tamin Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/15 Chief Election Commissioner 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Nyokum Lapang PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Techi Sanjay Age: 0 Occupation : Returning Officer 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of F Sector Lapang PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Tadar Baro Age: 0 Occupation : Presiding Officer 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Pachin Colony Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Akiong Yangfo Age: 0 Occupation : the Polling Officer 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Chimpu PO R K Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 8:Lingdum Kioda Age: 0 Occupation : Chairman Election Enrolment Committee 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Modirijo Six Kilo PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Page No.# 3/15 Arunachal Pradesh. 9:Lokam Andrew Tajo Age: 0 Occupation : Vice Chairman Electoral Enrollment Committee 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Chimpu PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 10:Nabam Sera Age: 0 Occupation : Member Electoral Enrollment Committee 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Ganga Village PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 11:Bamang Gungma Age: 0 Occupation : Member Electoral Enrollment Committee 16th General Conference cum Election of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Lower Putung PO RK Mission PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 12:Nabam Dodum Age: 0 Occupation : Ex President of All Nyishi Students Union (ANSU) resident of Tallang Hira Memorial Complex Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama, S K Deori,D Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate,Tasso Page No.# 4/15 Dodung,Khoda Yubey,R Barman,Sumit Chhetri,T Lampung Advocate for the Respondent : Rajesh Sonar, Michi Khambo,Binny Nyaruce,R Taku BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA ORDER 07.03.2025 Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. K. Deori, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in I.A. Case No. 11/2025, arising out of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel, that challenging the legality and validity of the impugned temporary injunction order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Yupia, in Misc. (J) Case No. 25/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 21/2024, an appeal has been preferred registered as Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025, which is pending before the learned Appellate Court, Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia. At the time of filing the said Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025, the petitioner also filed an interlocutory application, numbered as I.A. No. 11/2025, praying for the stay/suspension of the impugned temporary injunction order dated 28.01.2025, Page No.# 5/15 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 25/2024 in Title Suit No. 21/2024, on the grounds that the impugned temporary injunction order suffers from arbitrariness, perversity, and non-application of judicial mind. Despite the fact that the petitioner has been democratically elected as President of the All Nyishi Students' Union (ANSU) for 2024-2027, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no substantial legal rights to seek an injunction against the democratically elected leader. The learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 28.01.2025, ought to have appreciated that restraining the petitioner from functioning as president of ANSU would indirectly cause harm to the entire student fraternity of the Nishi community throughout the State of Arunachal Pradesh and would deprive the petitioner of exercising his legal rights through no fault of his own. However, the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate these facts and dismissed I.A. No. 11/2025, filed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 02/2025, vide its impugned order dated 10.02.2025, in a casual and arbitrary manner, without assigning any reasons. It also fixed the hearing date for the main appeal on 04.03.2025, which was subsequently adjourned to 13.03.2025. 4. He further submitted that the main contention of the respondents/plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 21/2024 was that the election team (defendant Nos. 1 to 8) had conducted the election in violation of the injunction order dated 14.11.2024, passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 18/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 17/2024. The said Title Suit No. 17/2024 was filed seeking for setting aside and quashing of the notification dated 09.11.2024, issued by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Electoral Enrolment Committee constituted for the ANSU Election 2024-2027. It is further contended that the election team disallowed the candidates of the respondents/plaintiffs to participate and allowed the candidates of the rival party in violation of the injunction order Page No.# 6/15 dated 14.11.2024. Despite this violation, the election proceeded, during which 51 candidates, who had the right to vote and were delegates of students, were not allowed to cast their votes, while 54 candidates from the rival group were allowed to vote, resulting in the petitioner's defeat in the election by 91 votes. However, Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, submitted that all votes were cast via secret ballot, and there is no material or evidence has been presented by the respondents/plaintiffs to show that the 51 candidates would have casted vote in favour of respondent/plaintiff No. 1, nor there is any evidence to suggest that the 54 candidates voted in favour of the petitioner/defendant No. 10. The Court decided on the matter before recording any evidence to determine whether the election was conducted illegally. 5. He further submitted that the entire election process was completed by 29.11.2024, followed by the declaration of the election results for the central executive committee of ANSU for 2024-2027, through the impugned notification dated 29.11.2024, issued by the Chief Election Commissioner and the Returning Officer. The results were published in the Arunachal Times on 03.12.2024. He further submitted that while passing the injunction order dated 28.01.2025, in connection with Misc. (J) No. 25/2024, there was no discussion on the merits of the case. The order was passed solely based on the submissions of the plaintiff that the election was conducted in violation of the injunction order dated 14.11.2024, passed in Misc. (J) No. 18/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 17/2024. The present petitioner, being defendant No. 10 in the Title Suit, did not violate any terms and conditions while contesting the election, and no case was made out against the present petitioner/defendant No. 10, despite the injunction order being passed against him. He further submitted that the learned Appellate Court, without considering the facts and merits of the case, Page No.# 7/15 rejected the prayer for a stay, which caused prejudice to the petitioner/defendant No. 10. Accordingly, this instant petition is filed by the petitioner, praying for the setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the learned Appellate Court, which rejected the prayer for a stay. 6. He further submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has the power to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court, if there is any perverse finding or lack of factual basis. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri & Anr., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 532, wherein, it was held that if there is no material to show that the election was materially affected due to non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it must be held that there is no material evidence showing that the votes cast would have been in favour of the election petitioner. He relies on paragraph 30 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: “30. Noting that the learned Judicial Commissioner had reached the conclusion by committing the same error, which was criticized in Vashisht Narain Sharma's case, this Court observed that the learned Judicial Commissioner had taken the statement of the witnesses at their worth and had held on the basis of those statements that all the votes that had not been cast, would have gone to the election petitioner. This Court ruled in the said case that for this approach adopted by the learned Judicial Commissioner there was no foundation in fact, it was a surmise and it was anybody's guess as to how these people who had not voted, would have actually voted. This Court, on appreciation of evidence, held that the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner that the election was in contravention of the Act and the Rules was correct, but that did not alter the position with regard to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, which required that election petitioner must go a little further and prove that the result of the election had been materially affected.” Page No.# 8/15 7. He further relied on another decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vashist Narain Sharma vs. Dev Chandra & Others, reported in (1954) 2 SCC 32, wherein, the same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 12, 14, and 15. 8. He further submits that, it is evident that the learned Trial Court, without considering the material facts of the case, passed the order in a most casual and arbitrary manner. Hence, this Court has the power to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. In this regard, he relied on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Achitananda Baidya vs. Prafullya Kumar Gayen & Others, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 76, particularly emphasized on paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel prays for the setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia, and also prays for the stay/suspension of the impugned order dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court in I.A. Case No. 11/2025, arising out of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025. 9. On the other hand, Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the present petition is not maintainable, as there is no material to show that the order passed by the learned Trial Court, allowing the injunction petition and rejecting the prayer for a stay of the injunction, is perverse or that there is any patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction. He further submitted that this is not an appeal to scrutinize or assist with the evidence of the parties at this stage, and the appeal is still pending before the learned Appellate Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), which is fixed for 13.03.2025 for final arguments. Therefore, at this stage, if a stay is granted on the injunction order, the appeal Page No.# 9/15 itself will become infructuous, as it was filed to challenging the injunction order passed by the learned Trial Court. He further submits that there is no question of staying the injunction order passed by the learned Court below, as the three golden principles were discussed by the learned Trial Court while passing the injunction order. 10. He further submits that through the earlier injunction order dated 14.11.2024, the 54 candidates were debarred from participating in the election process, in violation of the injunction order, they participated in the election, while the 51 candidates nominated/selected by the plaintiff were debarred from casting their votes. It is not known whether the 51 candidates would have voted in favour of the petitioner if they would have been allowed to vote, but it is clear that the election was held in violation of the earlier injunction order dated 14.11.2024, and accordingly, the election result was declared. Moreover, the learned Appellate Court has fixed a short date for the final disposal of the main appeal, which was filed by the petitioner against the injunction order dated 28.01.2025 in Misc. (J) No. 25/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 21/2024. If a stay order is granted at this juncture, it will delay the disposal of the appeal, and the appeal will become infructuous. 11. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents, further submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the scope for interference is very limited. He further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner were not in the context of a revision petition. Furthermore, from the order itself, it is clear that there is no patent illegality or lack of jurisdiction that may cause any miscarriage of justice. The injunction order was rightly passed by considering the three golden principles in favour of Page No.# 10/15 the plaintiff/respondent No.1. At the same time, there is no patent illegality in rejecting the prayer for a stay in the main appeal, as the learned Appellate Court fixed a short date for hearing with a view to dispose of the matter at the earliest. He further submitted that the ultimate remedy is still pending before the Appellate Authority, and under such circumstances, there is very limited scope for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that unless there is perversity or patent illegality, this Court has limited power to interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. To substantiate his submission, he relied on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ventatlal G. Pittie & Anr. vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd., reported in (1987) 3 SCC 558, particularly emphasised on paragraphs 27 and 28 of the said judgment. 12. He also relied on another decision passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs. Prakash Chand Goel, reported in (2022) 4 SCC 181, and emphasized in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment, which read as follows: ”15. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own Page No.# 11/15 decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal.1 The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, 1Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and Others v. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and Others, (2010) 1 SCC violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. 16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.2 has observed:- “6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the High Court while Page No.# 12/15 acting under this article cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to 13. Mr. Sonar, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the order is admittedly an interlocutory order, and the appeal is still pending before the learned Appellate Court. He further submits that in the absence of evidence showing a jurisdictional error, that the order is perverse or illegal, or that there is any patent defect in the order, the interference in the order passed by the learned Trial Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. To substantiate this plea, he also relied on the following decision passed by the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court: i). Hillang Tadh & Ors. vs. Byabang Joram & Ors., reported in 2023 (1) GLT 149; 14. He further submitted that when there is an alternative remedy, an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, and in this regard, he relied on the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Saini vs. DCM Ltd. & Others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 622. Thus, he submits that the present petition is not maintainable and prays for its dismissal. 15. Upon hearing the submissions made by the learned counsels for both Page No.# 13/15 sides, it is seen that the present petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 10.02.2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in I.A. Case No. 11/2025, arising out of Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02/2025, wherein the prayer for stay was rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner made a detailed argument regarding the merits of the case, emphasizing that there is no material presented before this Court, either in the form of evidence or documentary evidence, to support the injunction. It is also submitted that the injunction order was passed based on the allegation of violation of the earlier injunction order dated 14.11.2024, passed in Misc.(J) Case No. 18/2024, arising out of Title Suit No. 17/2024, by the learned Trial Court. 16. Mr. Mazumder, learned Senior Counsel, also emphasized the fact that it is not known whether the 51 candidates, who were allegedly debarred from casting their votes, would have voted in favour of the plaintiff. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that the 54 candidates who were allowed to vote cast their votes in favour of the petitioner/defendant No. 10. However, without any material before the Court, the learned Trial Court passed the injunction order arbitrarily and without any evidence. It is also alleged that the learned Appellate Court rejected the prayer for stay without assigning any reasons. 17. However, it is observed that while passing the injunction order, the learned Trial Court had discussed the three golden principles in detail, and the learned Appellate Court, while rejecting the prayer for stay, also noted that the Trial Court had thoroughly considered these principles. Accordingly, the Appellate Court observed that no sufficient cause had been made out to grant the stay of the impugned order. To ensure a quick resolution, the appeal was fixed for Page No.# 14/15 hearing on 04.03.2025, with the intention to dispose of it. However, on 04.03.2025, the hearing could not proceed, and the next date for hearing is fixed on 13.03.2025. Thus, it is evident that the learned Appellate Court fixed a short date in the appeal with the aim of ensuring its prompt disposal. 18. Furthermore, it is observed that there is no jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the order passed by the learned Appellate Court while rejecting the prayer for stay. This is purely an interlocutory order, and there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court at this stage. 19. It is an admitted fact that the scope under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited, and unless the inferior court or the learned Trial Court passes a perverse order, or there is a patent illegality or jurisdictional error, this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 227. As has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, "unless there is any patent illegality or miscarriage of justice, the order of the inferior court or learned Trial Court cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India". In the instant case, as discussed above, there is no patent illegality, irregularity, lack of jurisdiction, or perversity in the order, which is purely interlocutory in nature. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order passed by the learned Appellate Court should not be interfered with at this stage. Moreover, the learned Appellate Court has taken all necessary steps to dispose of the appeal promptly. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Appellate Court's order and accordingly, the prayer for setting aside and quashing of the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Yupia stands Page No.# 15/15 rejected. 20. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of at the motion stage. JUDGE Comparing Assistant