Temporary injunction from supreme court (article 32)

The facts posted does not suggest a convincing cause of action to approach the Supreme Court.

Sir, 

The purpose to approach the supreme court is to only obtain the ex-parte injunction.

In short I would argue the same thing once again for sake of clarity.

Preamble which is a part of constitution vide supreme court judgement, has granted me the right to have a governance which is democratic in nature. Thus having a democratic governance over me is my constitutional right.

The person who is the at present mukhiya in his nomination papers on oath has witheld he being a government servant as well as havinga criminal history. I have copies of his nomination papers as well the court records of his criminal activity.

Hence the at present mukhiya having followed non democratic process has lead to me being governed in a non democratic way, which is violation of my constitutional right. Hence under Article 32 I can approach the supreme court seeking ex-parte temporary injunction.

As the present matter is pending in the lower court and law of injunction says that nothing can bar the high court or supreme court from granting an injunction despite cases pending in lower courts, hence in theory/principle I should be able to get the injunction.

Once again sir, whats your opinion ?

My case was admitted on 13th december, 2016, I was still to send notice to parties as was seeking amendment.

Despite the notice pending I submitted an application ex-parte, the munsif refused to grant an order on the application and said that the application would be sent alongwith the notice. This portion where the munsif said that the application would be sent alongwith the notice is mentioned in the daily order sheet.

Finally an order for amendment that I was seeking was passed on 1st June 2017, so immediately we sent all the notices to respondents. On 15th July I filed one more application seeking ex - parte injunction the munsif bluntly told that he wont be granting an ex-parte order. So we told him that he declares his order as allowed or disallowed (give us something in writing). This portion is not mentioned in the order sheet.

Now the munsif has been transferred, so the next munsif who comes would take atleast few months to arrive and my case would linger.

Summarising the questions that arise as per which supreme court can be approached are:

a) Can a temporary injunction ex-parte be allowed once case is admitted but notice has not been sent? Can after 6 months since such an incident I approach the supreme court, whats the binding time ?

b) If the munsif is absent who should I approach ? The person in charge ? The district Judge? Please answer this part!

c) Can it be posible that I have the entire case transferred to the supreme court as in my petition I have made mention and can prove that booth rigging is a challenge to National Security? Please answer this question too!

Finally on 15th July 

For temporary injunction also some convincing ground is necessary with the backing of law. However, if you feel that your case is perfect, better contact some Supreme Court Lawyer personally to take up you case, provided he is also convinced.

Otherwise, for your information Panchayat is also a local self Government.

By the way, what specific fundamental rights are being violated by his being a representative of two autonomous bodies for which you want to seek remedy under the provisions of Art.32 through the Supreme Court?

 i have a fundamental right bestowed upon to me by the constituton to be governed demcoratically  declared by the preamble which   is a part of the constituton held by supreme court judgement. 

A peron who is not qualified to contest the electon if contests the electon and wins then a governance as such   is non democratc in nature hence my fundamental rght to have a democratc goevrnance is  violated hence approaching the supreme court under article 32 or high court under artcle 226   am plannng to recieve a relief by obtaining an ex-parte injuncton.

though simultaneouly case exists in lower court of the munsif.

As the rule of injuncton declares that though case existing in lower court  is not a bar to high court or supreme court for granting injuncton.

A question   i have  is under what category can i fle a case for only ex parte temporary injuncton only from the high court?

What I am of the opinion, the case does not indicate any breach of your own fundamental rights. Rather your attempt seems to be towards debarring fundamental rights to the gentleman, against whom you want injunction, unless both the positions pertain to holding of the office of profit by him.

Anyway, best of luck.

I am also of the same opinion, as expressed by Mr. Jigyasu.

To be governed democratically is my constitutional right, and this right is violated the moment a non democratic process of governance by an individual comes into existence.

I am seeking injunction becuase the person holds two governemnet offices as well as has witheld his criminal history.

I am moving the high court as of now could be filing in a day or two

All I need is a confirmation of whether this statement is true.

""the rule of injuncton declares that though case existing in lower court  is not a bar to high court or supreme court for granting injuncton.""

Sir can you please reply to this

 I am moving the high court as of now could be filing in a day or two All I need is a confirmation of whether this statement is true. ""the rule of injuncton declares that though a case existing in lower court  is not a bar to approaching high court or supreme court for granting injuncton.""  [ CITATIONS  PLEASE in form of judgement or where it is mentioned in law, I have read it]

To be governed democratically is my constitutional right, and this right is violated the moment a non democratic process of governance by an individual comes into existence. I am seeking injunction becuase the person holds two governemnet offices as well as has witheld his criminal history from his nomination papers.
 

ir can you please reply to this  I am moving the high court as of now could be filing in a day or two All I need is a confirmation of whether this statement is true. ""the rule of injuncton declares that though a case existing in lower court  is not a bar to approaching high court or supreme court for granting injuncton.""  [ CITATIONS  PLEASE in form of judgement or where it is mentioned in law, I have read it]

To be governed democratically is my constitutional right, and this right is violated the moment a non democratic process of governance by an individual comes into existence. I am seeking injunction becuase the person holds two governemnet offices as well as has witheld his criminal history from his nomination papers.

 

Originally posted by : Harekrishna D C
	Sir can you please reply to this  I am moving the high court as of now could be filing in a day or two All I need is a confirmation of whether this statement is true. ""the rule of injuncton declares that though a case existing in lower court  is not a bar to approaching high court or supreme court for granting injuncton.""  [ CITATIONS  PLEASE in form of judgement or where it is mentioned in law, I have read it] To be governed democratically is my constitutional right, and this right is violated the moment a non democratic process of governance by an individual comes into existence. I am seeking injunction becuase the person holds two governemnet offices as well as has witheld his criminal history from his nomination papers.

@Harekrishna DC,

It is not you who need to be confirmed whether your statement is true or false, it is your lawyer, who shas to fight your case, hould be convinced whether your conviction is true or false. Even if someone here confirms that your statement is true, where is the surety that your own lawyer would be convinced with that.

Still further, since your lawyer has to fight the case on your own conviction, if agreed with your perception, it is his duty to quote appropriate citations, not your duty as a layman to provide him with court judgments also.

So, if you really have any such problem of not being democratically governed, instead of wasting time here, you would have consulted some High Court lawyer. and convinced him or got yourself convinced about the legalities of your problem. You may better do the same now.