Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab - 2000 Supreme(SC) 739

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2000 Supreme(SC) 739

2000(3) Supreme 170
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti, JJ.
Gurdeep Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4911 of 1999
Decided on 7-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Advoates.
For the Respondents : Yogeshwar Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Dr. I.P. Singh, Ms. Rachna Gupta, P.K. Bajaj, Rajiv Dutta, Advocates.

Headnote:Punjab Municipal Act, 1911-Section 20-Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1994-Rule 3-Election of President-Two candidate contesting-One group seeking open voting-Presiding Officer sticking to rule and declaring election by secret ballot-One group staying walk out-Other group seeking presiding officer to declare their candidate as duly elected-Presiding Officer adjourning meeting to obtain legal opinion-Writ thereagainst-High Court s direction to convene meeting from point it was adjourned and hold election but without allowing candidates who earlier staged walk out to participate-Presiding Officer not correct in adjourning meeting-He should have conducted election as per Rules-High Court justified in directing to convene meeting from stage it was adjourned but not justified in excluding members who earlier walked out from participating at reconvened meeting-All members who choose to attend, shall be allowed to participate in voting.
       Held : The Rules as clear, unambiguous and do not leave any room for doubt. In as much as there was a contest, the convener ought to have proceeded for voting through ballot papers observing utmost secrecy. There could not have been an open voting which, though demanded, should have been firmly ruled out. Sub rule (2) of Rule 4 reposes confidence in the convener, i.e. the person presiding over the meeting to assist any member who is illiterate or otherwise incapable to cast his vote by writing Yes or No on the ballot paper on behalf of such member. It is unfortunate that the members wanted the voting to be conducted in a manner inconsistent with the Rules. The convener should have over-ruled any such demand and should have proceeded to hold the election in the manner contemplated by the Rules. The convener was also not justified in adjourning the meeting on the ground of "seeking guidance from the higher officer and the Government". There was hardly any occasion for such seeking of the guidance and adjourning the meeting. (Para 8)
       The two candidates were duly nominated candidates and the stage for voting was set. Even if a few members including one of the candidates had left the place of the meeting, nothing prevented them from coming back and joining in the voting. If only the convener had commenced the voting and the members, who had earlier staged a walk-over, had returned and expressed their desire to join in voting, they could not have been prevented from doing so. The High Court was justified in directing the meeting to be resumed from the point at which it was adjourned but was not justified in directing the members, who had walked out, from being excluded from participation at such reconvened meeting. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The direction of the High Court for reconvening the meeting and resuming the same from the stage at which it was adjourned is sustained. So must part of the order as directs the notice of the meeting to be given to only those members who had remained present at the venue of the meeting and excludes the members staging walk-over from participation in the meeting and in the voting at the election for the office of the President is set aside. Instead it is directed that the notice of such reconvened meeting shall be given to all the members constituting the Municipality and all such members, who choose to attend, shall be allowed to participate in the voting. (Paras 9 and 10)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-A meeting of the newly elected members of the Municipal Council, Bareta for the purpose of electing President and Vice-President of the Municipality, as contemplated by Section 20 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (hereinafter the Act for short) read with Rule 3 of Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President) Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter the Rules for short) was convened for 7th April, 1998. There are 13 members of the Municipal Council. The local member of the legislative assembly is an ex-officio member of the Council, who was Shri Hardev Singh Arshi at the relevant time.

2. On 7.4.1998 only 5 out of 13 elected members were present which did not make the quorum for the convened meeting. The convener of the meeting, therefore, adjourned the meeting for want of quorum to 11.4.1998 at 11 a.m. to be held in the office of the Municipal Council, Budhlada.

3. On 11.4.1998, the thirteen elected members and ex-officio member Shri Hardev Singh Arshi, M.L.A. were all present at the appointed time and place. The meeting commenced. It was presided over by Shri Tej Kumar Goyala, P.C.S., General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Mansa, as convener. As contemplated by Rule 3, oath of allegiance was administered to all the elected members. Proposals were then invited for the post of the President. The names of Shri Lachman Dass and Shri Gurdeep Singh were duly proposed and seconded. As there was a contest, the convener proceeded to call for voting. Shri Mohinder Singh, who had proposed the name of Shri Gurdeep Singh demanded the election to be held through open ballot. The convener declared that the Rules contemplated election by secret ballot. However, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Shri Mohinder Singh and their followers refused to abide by the opinion of the Presiding Officer and insisted on open voting. On the convener having refused to accede with their demand, Shri Gurdeep Singh, Shri Mohinder Singh and 6 others, i.e. in all 8 members, staged a walk out by leaving the place of the meeting.

4. Shri Hardev Singh Arshi, M.L.A. and the remaining 5 members requested for Shri Lachman Singh being declared elected as President. However, the convener was of the opinion that before proceeding further he would like to seek guidance from the higher officers and the Government because of the "legal point" involved and he adjourned the meeting for further orders and drew up the proceedings of the meeting recording the above said facts.

5. Shri Lachman Dass and a few other members preferred a writ petition before the High Court seeking a mandamus to the convener of the meeting for resuming the meeting from the stage at which it was adjourned and concluding the election. By order dated 12.2.1999, which is under appeal, the High Court has allowed the writ petition couching its rule in following words :-

"In these circumstances, we direct the official respondents to continue the election from that stage by instructing either the fourth respondent or any other competent official to convene the meeting according to law after giving proper notice only to such of those members who remained present in the venue of the meeting after respondents 6 to 14 had walked out, and permit them to vote in the election for the office of the President. If any of such members choose to be absent on the date fixed for election to the office of the President in spite of the notice to them then, those members who are present shall be permitted to vote and elect the President. Whoever gets the highest number of votes as between the petitioner and the 10th respondent should be declared as elected as President.

So far as the office of the Vice-President is concerned, the election for the same shall be held separately in accordance with law, in a separate meeting.

This petition is ordered accordingly."

6. Feeling aggrieved, Shri Gurdeep Singh and 8 others have filed the present appeal by special leave.

7. We may heard the learned counsel for the parties. Durin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document