1982 Supreme(Raj) 444
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
S.C.Agrawal, J.
Niranjan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Collector, Sriganganagar and Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 295/82.
Decided On : 14-10-1982
Headnote:
ELECTION - Validity - Challenge - Maintainability of writ petition - Alternative remedy of election petition - Grounds of challenge - Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law - Material effect on result of election - Exclusive jurisdiction of Election Tribunal - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution - Scope.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Up-Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, challenged the validity of the election of members of the standing committees of the Panchayat Samiti held on 10th February, 1982 and notified on 11th February, 1982 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Anupgarh. The election was conducted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959. The petitioner alleged that there was non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Standing Committee Rules and that no election was actually held on 10th February, 1982.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was an alternative remedy of an election petition available to the petitioner under Section 71 A read with Section 13 of the Act and the Election Petition Rules made by the State Government. The Court further held that the grounds on which the petitioner was challenging the election could be agitated in an election petition under Rule 3 of the Election Petition Rules. The Court also held that the question as to whether the provisions of a particular rule are mandatory or directory in nature is not of much significance and even if a particular provision is held to be mandatory, the non-compliance of the provisions would not, ipso facto, result in invalidation of the election and it will further have to be established that such non-compliance has materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate.
Issues: 1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the alternative remedy of an election petition? 2. Whether the grounds on which the petitioner was challenging the election could be agitated in an election petition? 3. Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law would ipso facto result in invalidation of the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The existence of an alternative remedy of an election petition is a bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The grounds on which the petitioner was challenging the election could be agitated in an election petition under Rule 3 of the Election Petition Rules. 3. The non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of law would not ipso facto result in invalidation of the election and it will further have to be established that such non-compliance has materially affected the result of the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed summarily.
JUDGMENT
1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Niranjan singh, who is Up-Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Anupgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Panchayat Samiti') has challenged the validity of the 'election of the members of the standing committees of the Panchayat Samiti held on 10th February, 1982 and notified on 11th February, 1982 by the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Anupgarh (respondent no. 2).
2. The Panchayat Samiti has been constituted under the provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Under Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, it has been provided that every Panchayat Samiti shall constitute four standing committees one for each of the group of subjects mentioned In clauses (a), (b), (c), and (d) of sub Section (1). Provision has also been made for constitution of a fifth standing committee for any of the subjects enumerated in any group or groups mentioned in Sub-section (1). In Sub-section (3) of Section 20, it is provided that every standing committee shall consist of seven members, five of whom shall be from amongst the members of the Panchayat Samiti and two of whom shall be co-opted in the prescribed manner from amongst persons not being members of the Panchayat Samiti residing in the block and having experience and knowledge of the subjects assigned to the standing committee. The State Government has framed the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti Avam Zila Parishad (Sthai Samitian Ka Gathan) Niyam, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Standing Committee Rules') whereunder provision has been made for election as well as cooption of the members of the standing committees of the Panchayat Samitis Rule 3 of the Standing Committee Rules lays down that the members of the standing committee shall be elected at a meeting convened by the Presding Officer, Viz. Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti. Rule 5 prescribes that for the aforesaid meeting of the Panchayat Samit) seven clear days' notice must be given to all the members of the Panchayat Samiti and the said notice should state the place., date and time during which the nomination papers can be filed, the place, date and time when the scrutiny of the nomination papers would be conducted and the place and date and time when the polling, if necessary, will be held. The said rule further requires that the said notice shall be sent to the various members by registered post or any other method considered appropriate by the Presiding Officer and the said notice should also be put on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. Rule 6 makes provision for filing of nomination papers. Rule 7 provides for scrutiny of the nomination papers. Rule 8 provides for publication of the list duly nominated candidates. Rule 9 makes provision for withdrawal of candidature. Rule 10 provides that if the number of vacancies are equal to the number of can-dates, then the Presiding officer would declare all the candidates to be elected, if the number of candidates is less than the number of vacancies, then the Presiding Officer would declare all the candidates to be elected and would fix another date for election for the remaining vacancies, and if the number of candidates is more than the members to be elected, then the members present would be required to cast their votes by secret poll. Rule 11 prescribes the procedure for the polling and under Sub-rule (7) of rule 11, it is laid down that when the polling is over the Presiding Officer shall count the votes in the presence of the members and would declare the candidate who has received the highest votes as being elected and in the event of candidates receiving equal number of votes, lots would be drawn, Rule 14 provides that after the completion of the election, the Presiding Officer shall prepare the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting and would allow the members to put their signatures on the said min
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
