Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1617 (PNJ)

Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-11-15

RANJIT SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT RANJIT SINGH, J. The election to the office of Sarpanch of village Barsat, Block and District Patiala was held on 16.07.2008. Petitioner No. 1 was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. Respondent No. 7 challenged the election of petitioner No. 1 by filing election petition. It was alleged that the resolution electing the petitioner as Sarpanch was illegally passed in a wrong manner. Notice for holding the election of Sarpanch was not received by the said respondent. The Election Tribunal accepted the election petition on 04.08.2009 and declared the election of the petitioner as null and void and ordered fresh election to the post of Sarpanch. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal against the said order before this Court pointing out that the prior notice has been served to all the members of Gram Panchayat and the election was rightly and properly held when the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch. On 31.10.2009, this Court stayed the order passed by the Tribunal and directed the election Tribunal to permit petitioner No. 1 to continue as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat till decision of appeal. In the meantime, petitioner No. 1 himself approached the authorities that he was not in physically fit condition to continue on the post of Sarpanch. He was statedly pursuing his studies in Bachelor of Education Course. Petitioner No. 1, accordingly, submitted his resignation and withdrew the appeal, which he had filed before this Court to challenge the order passed by the Election Tribunal. Since the office of the Sarpanch became vacant, respondent No. 5 took action to hold the meeting of the Panches to elect the Sarpanch. It is alleged that respondents No. 1 to 6 were required to act in accordance with law while conducting the election to the post of Sarpanch. Reference is made to Rule 45 of Punjab State Election Rules, 1994 alleging that instead of initiating these proceedings, no action was taken and the proceedings were delayed to elect the Sarpanch. By not holding the election in this manner, show cause notice was issued to petitioners No. 1 to 4 on the ground that they were in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The petitioners filed response to show cause notice but they were placed under suspension on 22.12.2010. By not holding the election in this manner, show cause notice was issued to petitioners No. 1 to 4 on the ground that they were in illegal possession of the panchayat land. The petitioners filed response to show cause notice but they were placed under suspension on 22.12.2010. On the basis of this report, inquiry was also entrusted to the Deputy Director Panchayats and petitioner No. 2 was directed to appear in the complaint made by respondents no. 7 to 9 before the inquiry officer. Aggrieved against this suspension order, petitioner No. 4 filed an appeal against the suspension order. The appeal was accepted and petitioner No. 4 was reinstated on 04.04.2011. The appeal filed by Harjinder Singh/petitioner No. 1 was dismissed on the same date. In the meantime, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No. 4491 of 2011 alleging that the official respondents were not holding any meeting to elect the Sarpanch but instead were holding a meeting to elect authorise Panch to hand over the charge of Panchayat in this manner to respondent No. 7 (Harnek Singh Panch). This Court stayed the order passed in this regard. Thereafter, the process was initiated to elect the Sarpanch of village and notice was issued on 01.04.2011 to all the Panches to participate in the election. The meeting was fixed on 04.04.2011. On the said date, the meeting was adjourned but on the next date at 10.00 a.m. respondent No. 7 was elected as Sarpanch without issuing any notice to the petitioner whose suspension had been revoked on 04.04.2011. The petitioner, accordingly, had challenged this election of respondent No. 7 on various grounds including the ground that the Panch entitled to vote was not issued notice rendering the election bad. The reply on behalf of respondent No. 7 as well as State has been filed. It is stated that respondent No. 7 was not apprised about the order of reinstatement of petitioner No. 4/Roop Singh whose suspension order was so revoked on the said date itself. Accordingly, the notice could not be served to him to remain present at the time of election. Otherwise also, the counsel would contend that suspended Panch cannot be barred to participate in the election as the suspension cannot be equated with removal. Whether the suspended Sarpanch can participate in election would be a debatable issue. Accordingly, the notice could not be served to him to remain present at the time of election. Otherwise also, the counsel would contend that suspended Panch cannot be barred to participate in the election as the suspension cannot be equated with removal. Whether the suspended Sarpanch can participate in election would be a debatable issue. It may depend upon the nature of wording of the suspension order but I am not expressing any opinion on this aspect. However, the fact remains that Roop Singh, Panch was not under any suspension and the election, which was held on 05.04.2011 was held without any notice to him. May be that respondent No. 6, who was to conduct this election, was not aware of this fact that the suspension of petitioner No. 4 had been revoked and so he could not issue notice to him. The fact, however, remains that the election, which was held on 05.04.2011, would be bad on this count as all the members were not put to notice, who were eligible to participate in the election. Accordingly, election of respondent No. 7, which was held on 05.04.2011, cannot be sustained on this short ground. The same, therefore, is set aside. The directions are hereby issued to official respondent to conduct the election to the post of Sarpanch of the village within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after serving proper notice to all the Panches eligible to participate in the election. The present petition is, accordingly, disposed of.