JUDGMENT : The petitioner in the present petition has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication issued by respondent no. 2 to the bank employees for performing election in the three Tier Election one of the appointment letter dated 03.09.2022 (contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 to withdraw appointment orders/letters pursuant to three Tier Panchayat General Election 2022 in Haridwar issued by District Election Officer; whereby a total 377 employees of Punjab National Bank has been appointed for Panchayat Election duty. (iii) Pass any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. In principle, the challenge is given to the communication of 03.09.2022, as it was passed by the District Magistrate/District Election Officer, whereby, the services of the employees of the State Bank of India has been sought to be utilized for the purposes of conduct of three-tier Panchayat Elections of 2022. The Constitution of Panchayats is envisaged by the constitutional mandate, as it has been incorporated by the Constitution 73rd amendment enforced with effect from 24.04.1993, resulting into an insertion of part IX of the Constitution. Under article 243(d), it defines “Panchayat”. The Panchayats herein under the Constitution, would mean the Panchayats which are a body of local self-government constituted under Article 243 B. Article 243-B of the Constitution of India is referred to hereunder:- “243B. Constitution of Panchayats (1) There shall be constituted in every State, Panchayats at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of this Part (2) Notwithstanding anything in clause (1), Panchayats at the intermediate level may not be constituted in a State having a population not exceeding twenty lakhs” 3. It is inclusive of Panchayats at different intermediary levels i.e. Village, Districts and Taluka levels. The election of the Panchayats are regulated by the provisions contained under Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act of 2016 and particularly, in accordance with the provisions contained under section 131 of Chapter 25 of the Act of 2016, the elections of the Panchayat, as substituted in its applicability, by the amendment made by Notification No. 152/XXXVI dated 10.06.2020. The election of the Panchayats are regulated by the provisions contained under Uttarakhand Panchayat Raj Act of 2016 and particularly, in accordance with the provisions contained under section 131 of Chapter 25 of the Act of 2016, the elections of the Panchayat, as substituted in its applicability, by the amendment made by Notification No. 152/XXXVI dated 10.06.2020. It provides that all the subjects related to the process of election of Panchayats would be governed by, under the supervision and control of “State Election Commission and the District Magistrate”, who shall supervise and conduct all the elections of Chairman and Vice-Chairman and even of the Members of Panchayats in the Districts. 4. The State Election Commission who has been made responsible for conduct of the election of Panchayats, would mean a body which stands constituted under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, which provides for the constitution of the “State Election Commission”, which is a body constituted for the purposes of conducting the election of the Panchayats and such other bodies, which are to be regulated by the State Election Commission. 5. The representation of People's Act of 1950, which has to be read with the provisions contained under the Representation of Peoples Act of 1951, defines the District Election Officer which would mean an officer designated under Section 13A of the Representation of the Peoples Act of 1950. The “State Election Commission”, as per the provisions of the Act of 1951 would be a body constituted under the Act for the purposes of conduct of election of various levels of Panchayats as provided under Article 243-B of the Constitution of India. 6. The petitioner has agitated his grievances in the present writ petition, as against the impugned order dated 03.09.2022, which was passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. the District Election Officer, whereby, for the purposes of conduct of election of three-tier Panchayat level, the employees of the Punjab National Bank, their services had been derived to be utilized for conduct of Panchayat Elections. 7. The status of the Punjab National Bank will fall to be a banking agency, which stands created by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, which is entitled to transact the business of banking in India and the “banking company” has been described therein under Section 2(5). 7. The status of the Punjab National Bank will fall to be a banking agency, which stands created by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, which is entitled to transact the business of banking in India and the “banking company” has been described therein under Section 2(5). The banks which are recognized, as to be a nationalized bank and is an instrumentality of the State are included in the schedules of banks which are reckoned, as to be a banking company under the Banking Regulation Act, in which the Punjab National Bank falls to be its instrumentality. 8. Even otherwise also, apart from the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, if article 246 of the Constitution of India is taken into consideration, the fields which it covers, on which the law could be framed by the State or the Centre, the banking has been included in Entry 45 of List 1 of the Union List of the 7th Schedule of the constitution, and in that eventuality, also on a harmonious construction of the Constitution of India, and the Banking Regulation Act, which is the genesis of existence of respondent no. 3, it becomes an instrumentality of the State, since being a “banking company”, as it has been defined under the Banking Regulation Act. The impugned order has been challenged by the present petitioner on the ground that the “public sector banks”, will not fall to be a “local authority” as defined under section 159 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Let us revert back to the provisions contained under Section 159 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, which is extracted hereunder; Section 159 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951 1[159. Staff of certain authorities to be made available for election work.— (1) The authorities specified in sub-section (2) shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under clause (4) of article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election. (2) The following shall be the authorities for the purposes of sub-section (1), namely:— (i) every local authority; (ii) every university established or incorporated by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act; (iii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) any other institution, concern or undertaking which is established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act or which is controlled, or financed wholly or substantially by funds provided, directly or indirectly, by the Central Government or a State Government.] 9. The scope of exercising of powers for deriving the services of staff of certain authorities, which are to be made available for the purpose of conduct of election work on the directions of the Chief Election Officer or the State Election Commission, had been sub-classified under subsection 2 of Section 159. The authority's from whom the services could be derived, had been given under subsection 2, which apart from including the local body, in its sub-clause IV of sub-section 2 of Section 159, it includes the institution concerned or any undertaking which is established or is under a central, provisional or State Act or which is controlled or financed wholly or substantially by the funds which are provided by the State or the Centre, will be an authority for the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 159. The respondent no. 3 herein in view of what has been observed above will fall to be an authority within the ambit of subsection IV of sub-section 2 of Section 159. Hence, they cannot be exempted for rendering services for the election work, which has been authorized to be taken under sub-section 1 of section 159. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to substantiate his argument, that the banking company will not fall to be within the definition of local authority for the purposes of deriving their services by the District Election Officer; has made reference to a judgement rendered by the co-ordinate bench reported in (2016) 1 U.D. 466 , Registrar Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Vs. District Election Officer, District Magistrate, and others, which too was in relation to the conduct of election of the Panchayats, as per the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act of 1947. District Election Officer, District Magistrate, and others, which too was in relation to the conduct of election of the Panchayats, as per the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act of 1947. The judgment in its totality if it is taken into consideration it was for the purposes of ouster of deriving services of the employees of the petitioner Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidhyalaya, is taken into consideration, it has not been considered in the context of the provisions contained under sub-section 2 of section 159 of the Representation of Peoples Act of 1951, nor, even the status of the petitioner has been taken into consideration, as to whether the petitioner would fall to be an instrumentality of the State, whose services could be derived by the State Election Commission for conducting the election of threetier Panchayats in the light of the provisions contained under sub-section IV of subsection 2 of section 159. 11. Hence, in that eventuality, the status which was being considered therein in the said judgment would be per incuriam, because the Court has not considered the controversy, as to what implication would sub-section 2 of section 159, would have for the purposes of deriving the services of the petitioner therein, which is Gurukul Kangri Vishwa Vidhyalaya. Hence, this judgment would be per incuriam to be applied in the absence of consideration of the implication of sub-section 2 of section 159, which does not exclusively only includes local authority but rather it also includes the other State agencies falling under sub-section IV of sub-section 2 of Section 159, which was the perspective not dealt with by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. Hence, the same would not be applicable. 12. Another judgment on which the reference has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the judgment which has been rendered by the Honorable Apex Court, as reported in (1995) Supp (2) SCC 13, Election Commission of India Vs. State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office Unit and Others. Though, this judgment was in relation to the State Bank of India, it was yet again in paragraph 5, had dealt with the controversy in the context of sub-section 2 of Section 159 only. State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office Unit and Others. Though, this judgment was in relation to the State Bank of India, it was yet again in paragraph 5, had dealt with the controversy in the context of sub-section 2 of Section 159 only. The judgment has not considered, nor, any observation has been made as to what implication, would sub clause 4 of subsection 2 of Section 159, would have for the purposes of deriving the services of the banking agencies, which are covered by the Banking Regulation Act as well as the Constitution which has been referred to hereinabove. In that eventuality, the exclusion of deriving the services of employees of the banking company, in the light of the implications which was then considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was in the context of the provisions contained under section 159(1), while, interpreting as to what would be inference and interpretation to be given to the term “local authority” will not be applicable herein in the absence of its consideration in the context of the scope left open for the State Election Commission to derive the services of the employees covered by the agencies provided under sub-clause IV of subsection 2 of Section 159. In that eventuality, this Court is of the view, that the impugned order of 03.09.2022, as passed by the District Election Officer for the purposes of deriving the services of the employees of the respondent bank, was will within its domain of exercise of powers under the provisions of the Representation of People's Act, which has to be harmoniously construed with the constitutional mandate, as well as the provisions of Section 131 of the Panchayat Raj Act, as made applicable by the amendment made therein in 2000. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that implications of section 159 would not be attracted for the purposes of Panchayat Election, because that will be confined to be made applicable to the elections as defined under the Act of 1951. The representation of the Peoples Act cannot be read, as if it was creating any restriction as such in the absence of there being any specific provisions provided therein creating a bar for deriving the services for the conduct of Panchayat Election, which is mandated by the Constitution. The representation of the Peoples Act cannot be read, as if it was creating any restriction as such in the absence of there being any specific provisions provided therein creating a bar for deriving the services for the conduct of Panchayat Election, which is mandated by the Constitution. An Act which has its genesis from the Constitution, which is the father of all laws cannot be confined to be read to confine it to be made applicable for the purposes of election in relation to the houses of legislature, referred to in the definition of election, particularly, when after the amendment made under Article 243, the election to the Panchayats, is also a constitutional mandate owing to the fact that Panchayats, too has been included under Article 246 of the Constitution of India by its incorporation under list 2, entry 5 of the Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this argument too is not acceptable by this Court and the same is accordingly rejected. 14. The aforesaid observation is being justified in view of the fact that under the Constitution, which in its chapter 9 provides for the Panchayats, it has defined the Panchayats as to be an Institution of a local self body for managing the affairs of the Panchayats, as described therein and hence it will be falling under schedule 7, list 2 of the Constitution of India. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.