Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 401 (ALL)

MEGHRAJ SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2001-04-26

SUDHIR NARAIN

body2001
SUDHIR NARAIN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 7. 4. 2001 of Panchayat Raj Officer, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2 whereby he has asked the petitioner to hand over charge of the office of pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Hazratpur Samsapur, district Bulandshahr to Up-Pradhan. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that the election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, hazratpur Samsapur, block and district Bulandshahr look place on 14. 6. 2000. The petition was declared elected and he was given certificate to this effect on 27. 6. 2000. He thereafter started functioning as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Certain persons made complaint against the petitioner that he is working as Conductor under the employment of U. P. State Road Transport corporation (in short the corporation) and as such he is disqualified to hold the office of pradhan. The matter was referred to the prescribed authority under Section 6a of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act ). The prescribed authority found that the petitioner is working as Conductor and is under the employment of Corporation and as such he is disqualified to function as Pradhan in view of the provisions of Section 5a (c) of the Act. He accordingly passed an order on 23. 2. 2001 directing the District Panchayat Raj Officer to ask the petitioner to hand over the charge of the office of the Pradhan to Up-Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. The district Panchayat Raj Officer in pursuance of the direction of the Prescribed Authority, directed the petitioner to hand over the charge of the office of the Pradhan to Up-Pradhan by his order dated 7. 4. 2001. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri M. C. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that the petitioner is not in a Government service and as such is not disqualified to hold the office of pradhan of Gram Panchayat. In this respect, clause (c) of Section 5a of the Act may be examined which reads as under : (c) A person, who holds any office of profit under a State Government or the Central government or a local authority, other than a Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat or a Board, body or Corporation owned or Controlled by a State Government or the Central Government. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that a person holding the office of profit can contest the election if he holds the office of profit in a Gram Panchayat or Nyaya Panchayat or a board. Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central government because there is an exception by words "other than" in clause (c) of Section 5a of the Act. ( 5 ) THE exception as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in respect of Body or Corporation owned or controlled by a State Government or the Central Government for two reasons, firstly, there is a comma after the words "a Gram Panchayat or a Nyaya panchayat or Board". The comma excludes Body or Corporation owned or controlled by the state Government or the Central Government. Secondly, the Court has to apply the principle of ejusdem generies. This rule reflects an attempt "to reconcile incompatibility between the specific and general words in view of the other rules of interpretation that all words in a statute art given effect, if possible, that a statute is to be construed as a whole and that no words in a statute are presumed to be superfluous. " Vide Tribhuwan Prakash Nayyar v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 540 . In Amar Chandra a. Collector of Excise, Tripura, AIR 1972 SC 1863 , it was observed that the rule applies when " (1) the statute contains an enumeration of specific words : (2) the subjects of enumeration constitute a class or category ; (3) that class or category is not exhausted by the enumeration ; (4) the general terms follow the enumeration : and (5) there Is no indication of a different legislative intent. " If the subject of enumeration belong to a broad based genus as also to a narrower genus, there is no principle that the general words should be confined to the narrower genus. " ( 6 ) THE words "gram Panchayat, Nyaya Panchayat or a Board" form one specific category but the body or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government or the Central Government is hot covered by that category. " ( 6 ) THE words "gram Panchayat, Nyaya Panchayat or a Board" form one specific category but the body or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government or the Central Government is hot covered by that category. A person, who Is employed, or holding the office of profit in a body or Corporation owned or controlled by the State Government or Central Government does not come under the category referred to other local authorities referred to above under the exception clause. The petitioner being under the employment of the Corporation, which is controlled by the State Government, the petitioner shall stand disqualified to hold the office of pradhan in a Gram Panchayat under Section 5a (c) of the Act. ( 7 ) THE last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by the Prescribed Authority before passing the order dated 23. 2. 2001. The petitioner has not annexed the copy of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority date 23. 2. 2001. It Is a question of fact as to whether the petitioner was afforded any opportunity of hearing by the Prescribed Authority before passing the order. It was open for the petitioner to have filed application before the same authority if he was not afforded any opportunity. ( 8 ) SECONDLY, it is not denied that the petitioner is working as a Conductor and is under the employment of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation and when the facts are admitted, then only question remains on the facts as to whether the petitioner is disqualified under clause (c) of section 5a of the Act. ( 9 ) THE petitioner has further not impleaded the person who has made complaint against him and at whose instance the proceedings were taken against the petitioner under Section 6a of the Act. ( 10 ) IN view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.