1996 Supreme(AP) 818

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.R.NAYAK
P.Ramachandra Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State Election Commission - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-96

The constitutional mandate concerning reservation in favour of members of Scheduled Castes and Schedu Tribes in the office of Chair persons in all the three categories of the Panchayat Raj Institutions cannot be circumvented by any statutory provisions or rules made under a statute.

Headnote:

ELECTION - PRESIDENT - MANDAL PARISHAD - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR SCHEDULED CASTES - NOMINATION - QUORUM - ELECTION OFFICER - STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER - JURISDICTION - ELECTION PETITION - NATURAL JUSTICE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AND RULES.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sri Gangaram, was elected from Mirzapur Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency on Congress Party ticket to the Bhainsa Mandal Parishad. Bhainsa Mandal Parishad in Adilabad district consists of eight territorial constituencies. Every Mandal Parishad, as per Section 153 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "the act"), shall have one President and one Vice-President elected by the elected members of the Mandal Parishad. The office of the President, Bhainsa Mandal parishad, was reserved for members of Scheduled Castes in accordance with the procedure prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 153 of the Act. Of the eight elected members of the Bhainsa Mandal Parishad, three belonged to the congress Party and five to the Telugu Desam Party (for short "t. D. P. "). Apart from the elected members, every Mandal Parishad consists of four categories of persons specified under Section 149 (1) of the Act, viz. , Member of the legislative Assembly, Lok Sabha Member, Rajya Sabha Member and a person belonging to the Minorities, co-opted in the prescribed manner. Besides sri Gangaram, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste, the other two members of the congress Party are Smt Bhoodevi, also belonging to a Scheduled Caste, and smt Sayamma. The T. D. P. has no members belonging to the Scheduled Castes. Members belonging to a recognised political party must obey the whip issued by the prescribed functionary of the Party as enjoined by Section 153 (1) of the act.

Finding of the Court:

1. The requirement of quorum is a valid condition precedent for any business to be transacted. When there was a rule prescribing a particular strength as the quorum, it must be adhered to and in the absence of any such rule, all the members must be present at such a meeting. 2. As there was no quorum at any point of time when the matter concerning the election of the President was taken up, it must be deemed mat there was no valid nomination at all and consequently there was no election to the office of President. 3. The rule relating to quorum being a statutory one of a mandatory nature, its infraction could not be condoned in any respect, even in respect of an election to a post reserved in favour of scheduled castes and other weaker sections.

Issues: 1. Whether there was a valid nomination of sri Gangaram on 18-3-1995 when the special meeting was convened for election of the President and Vice-President? 2. Whether the State Election Commissioner had power to set aside the election of Sri Gangaram, the petitioner, which was declared on 18-12-1995 by the Election officer? 3. Whether the State Election Commissioner's order dated 27-12-1995 was in breach of principles of natural justice in that the affected person - Sri Gangaram - was not heard before the declaration made in his favour as the President was interfered with by the State Election Commissioner?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The constitutional mandate concerning reservation in favour of members of Scheduled Castes and Schedu Tribes in the office of Chair persons in all the three categories of the Panchayat Raj Institutions cannot be circumvented by any statutory provisions or rules made under a statute. 2. The provision relating to quorum, in our view,, has already been complied with when the special meeting for the purpose of election of President and Vice-President commenced after the election of the co-opted member was over. 3. The meeting was only one meeting convened for election of the member (co-opted), President and Vice-President It cannot be split up into two meetings one for the election of President and the other for the election of Vice- president for the purpose of applying the quorum rule. 4. If, at the beginning, when a meeting commenced, there was quorum and business was taken up, until the listed business was over, it must be deemed that there was quorum for the meeting. 5. The requirement that certain number of members should be present at a meeting is only for the purpose of facilitating valid transaction of business. 6. It is a matter for the rules of the body concerned to specify the quorum. 7. If Rule 12 is to be made applicable to a case where there is only one duly proposed and seconded nomination, it will lead to absurd situations resulting in defeating the object and intendment of the constitutional mandate and the statutory requirement.

Final Decision: The writ petition filed by Sri Gangaram, the petitioner in W. P. NO. 1533 of 1996, was allowed. Consequently, W. P. No. 3474 of 1996 filed by Sri P. Ramachandra Reddy, Vice-President of the mandal Parishad, was dismissed.