Back
1984 Supreme(Raj) 25
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : K.S. Sidhu
Jagdish - Appellant
Versus
Harinarain - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2384 of 1983
Decided On : 01/18/1984
Appearance :
B.L. Sharma and P.C. Jain, for the Appellant
B.L. Luhadia, for the Respondents
The inclusion of residents of a gramdan village in the voters list of a Panchayat Circle is valid if the gramdan village forms part of a ward in that Panchayat Circle, and such inclusion does not violate the provisions of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971.
Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYAT ACT, 1953 - SECTION 10 (1-A), 10 (3) - RAJASTHAN GRAMDAN ACT, 1971 - SECTION 4 - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYAT AND NYAYA PANCHAYAT ELECTION RULES, 1960 - RULE 78 (D) (III) - VOTERS LIST - INCLUSION OF RESIDENTS OF GRAMDAN VILLAGES - VALIDITY - ELECTION TRIBUNAL'S FINDING - REVERSAL.
Fact of the Case:
In an election for the post of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nimodia, Jagdish was declared the winner with 538 votes against his nearest rival Han Narain who secured 531 votes. Han Narain challenged the election by filing a petition before the Munsif, alleging that 34 voters from two gramdan villages, Dhani Bhervan and Dhani Lakhavas, were not eligible to be included in the voters list as they were members of the Gram Sabha Dhani Lakhavas. The Munsif allowed the petition and set aside Jagdish's election.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court reversed the Munsif's decision and upheld Jagdish's election as Sarpanch. The Court held that the 34 voters from the gramdan villages were not disqualified from voting in the election and that their inclusion in the voters list was valid. The Court relied on Section 10 (1-A) and 10 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, which provide that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll or whose name is entered in such roll shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of the Panchayat Circle or Ward. The Court also noted that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 and the inclusion of the names of residents of a gramdan village in the voters list of the Panchayat Circle, if the gramdan village forms part of a ward in that Panchayat Circle.
Issues: 1. Whether the inclusion of 34 voters from the gramdan villages of Dhani Bhervan and Dhani Lakhavas in the voters list for the election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nimodia was valid. 2. Whether the Munsif erred in setting aside Jagdish's election as Sarpanch.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the inclusion of the 34 voters from the gramdan villages in the voters list was valid and that the Munsif erred in setting aside Jagdish's election. The Court relied on the following legal principles: 1. Section 10 (1-A) and 10 (3) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 provide that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll or whose name is entered in such roll shall be entitled to be registered in the list of voters of the Panchayat Circle or Ward. 2. There is no inconsistency between the provisions of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971 and the inclusion of the names of residents of a gramdan village in the voters list of the Panchayat Circle, if the gramdan village forms part of a ward in that Panchayat Circle. 3. The decision of the appellate authority under Rule 12-B of the Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 is final and cannot be called in question collaterally in subsequent proceedings before the election tribunal.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and reversed the Munsif's judgment and order setting aside Jagdish's election as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nimodia. The Court held that Jagdish's election was valid and the rule was made absolute accordingly.
K.S. Sidhu, J.-The petitioner, Jagdish, was declared elected as Sarpanch of Village Panchayat Gram Nimodia in the general election held on Dec. 14. 1981. He secured 538 votes against his nearest rival Han Narain (respondent 1) who polled 531 votes. Other candidates, namely, Kalyan, Nanag, Babulal and Bajrang Lal, polled 15,19,15 and 27 votes respectively. Han Narain challenged the petitioner’s election by presenting a petition to the Munsif (respondent 2). The petitioner who was impleaded as the main respondent in that election petition contested the same. The Munsif framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. Two of the issues which were decided in favour of Han Narain and against the elected candidate (petitioner herein) read as follows:
(1) Whether the voters list of Ward No. 8 of the Gram Panchayat Nimodia rantains a list of 53 voters from serial No. 75 to No. 127, who were residents of two gramdan villages, namely, Dhani Shervan and Dhani Lakhavas, and were as such members of the Gramsabha Dhani Lakhavas, who could not be validly registered as voters for the election of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Nimodia?
(2) Whether the aforementioned gram-dan villages of Dhani Bhervan and Dhani Lakhavas are included with area of Gram Sabha Dhani Lakhavas, which is an independent local body, if so whether the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953 does not extend to that area?
2. As a result of his findings on these two issues going in favour of Han Narain, the Munsif allowed the election petition, set aside the election of Jadgish as Sarpanch and declared it to be void by reason of the fact that 34 persons, who were members of Gram Sabha Dhani Lakhavas and who could not, in the opinion of the munsif , be validly included in the voters list for election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nimodia, had voted in the impugned election.
3. Jagdish, the elected Sarpanch, whose election has been set aside by the munsif , has filed this writ petition for reversal of the impugned judgment and order of the munsif ,
4. After hearing both sides and perusing the record, I am of opinion that the findings of the election Tribunal
(i.e. the munsif) on both the issues mentioned above are erroneous and the errors being apparent on the face of the record, this writ petition must be allowed and consequently the impugned judgment and order of the munsif be set aside.
5. Mr. Luhadia learned Counsel for the respondent defended the impugned judgment and order of the munsif on the basis of Rule 78 (d) (iii), Rajasthan Panchayat and Nyaya Panchayat Election Rules, 1960 (hereinafter called the Rules) which lays down inter alia that the election of any person as Sarpanch of a Panchayat may be called in question on the ground that the result of the election was materially affected “by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception, of any vote which was void”. Mr. Luhadia’s argument is that since the 34 votes belonging to the gramdan village of Dhani Bhervan and Dhani Lakhavas, became members of the Gram Sabha Dhani Lakhavas, in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Gramdan Act, 1971, they were not eligible to be included in the voters list for election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Nimodia. In other words, the argument is that the voters list of Panchayat Circle Nimodia, as finally published by the Collector under the Rules, which is on the record and which includes the names of 34 voters who could not, according to Counsel, be validly included in the list but were so included, is void to the extent of the inclusion of the names of the residents of the gramdan villages of Dhani Bhervan and Dhani Lakhavas as voters of Panchayat Circle Nimodia.
6. Now a reference to Section 10 (1-A) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, 1953, would show that every person who is qualified to be registered in the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly electoral roll relatable to the area comprised in the Panchayat Circle or a Ward thereof or whose name
