A stay of an order rejecting interim relief does not stay the underlying proceedings.

The petitioner, who was the opposite party in Election Misc. Case No. 03 of 2022, challenged an order of the District Judge, Balasore, rejecting his applications in a pending transfer petition (TRP(C) No. 10 of 2024) to stay the election proceeding and call for its record.

The transfer request arose after the Civil Judge-cum-J.M.F.C., Basta directed recounting of ballot papers.

The District Judge declined interim relief, observing that the recounting order was not directly under challenge in the transfer petition and that the opposite parties had not yet appeared.

By the time the writ petition was heard, the first opposite party had appeared and filed an objection to the transfer petition.

The High Court also noted that its interim order had stayed the operation of the District Judge’s impugned order, but had not stayed either underlying proceeding; nevertheless, both courts were not proceeding further.

Whether the District Judge’s rejection of the petitioner’s applications for stay and for calling the trial-court record warranted interference in the writ petition.

Whether the transfer petition and the election proceeding had been stayed by the High Court’s interim order, and what directions were required to secure further progress.

The first opposite party relied on Section 31 of the Odisha Gram Panchayat Act, 1964, concerning the forum for an election petition, and on Sarat Chandra Murmu v. Mohan Naik and Others, AIR 2010 Ori 49, in support of the contention that the transfer petition was not maintainable.

The High Court did not decide the applicability of Section 31 or the precedent, or determine the maintainability of the transfer petition; it left those questions open for the parties to raise before the District Judge.

The Court clarified that its interim order had not stayed either the transfer proceeding or the election proceeding.

The High Court noted that the first opposite party had since appeared and filed an objection, removing the circumstance on which the District Judge had partly relied in declining interim relief.

It did not rule on the legality of the recounting direction or the merits of the transfer request.

Instead, it clarified that neither underlying proceeding had been stayed and that the courts’ inaction appeared to stem from an alleged understanding of the High Court’s interim order.

Since maintainability remained open, the appropriate course was for the District Judge to hear the parties’ contentions and proceed with the transfer petition.

The parties were directed to appear on 5 October 2026, and the petitioner was directed to produce a certified copy of the judgment.

The interim order dated 26 November 2024 was vacated, and the related interlocutory application was disposed of; no order as to costs was made.