Back
2007 (2) WLN 270 (Raj.)
Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench)
HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE S.N. JHA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
Sameera Bano (Smt.)
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
F.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) Nos. 236/2006; 276/2006; 289/2006—Decided on 02.04.2007.
Held : Per S.N. Jha, C.J.—A pre-election disqualification can be adjudicated only in an election petition before the District Judge under Sec. 43 of the Act read with rule 80 of the Election Rules and can not be adjudicated by the authority under rule 23 of the Rules. [Para 39]
In the result, Special Appeal No. 236/2006 preferred by the successful candidate is allowed and the order of the Single Judge impugned therein is set aside; while Special Appeal Nos. 276/2006 and 289/2006 by the complainant and the State are dismissed. The writ petitions may be listed before the Single Bench for disposal in accordance with this judgment.[Para 40]
Per Ajay Rastogi, J. (Dissenting)—Pre-election disqualifications as provided under Sec. 19 of Act, 1994 can always be examined by competent authority under Sec. 39(2) of Act, 1994 and as regards election disputes, a candidate at the election can always question by way of election petition as provided under Sec. 43 of Act, 1994 read with Rule 80 of Election Rules which includes pre-election disqualifications also as one of grounds for questioning election of an elected candidate. The referred question stands answered accordingly.
[Para 68]
(B) Interpretation of statute—"Noscitur a soclis"—Meaning of. [Para 23]
Held : One of the rules of interpretation of statute is that the meaning of the particular word is to be judged "by the company it keeps". The rule is known as "noscitur a sociis'. In simple words it means that when two or more words which are capable of analogous meaning are coupled together, "they take their colour from each other". The rule is more comprehensive than the rule of 'ejusdem generis'. [Para 23]
(C) Interpretation of statute—Entire statute must be read as a whole.
Held : It is well settled that entire statute must be read as a whole. Relevant provisions of Constitution of India and so also those in the statute must be read harmoniously.
[Para 65]
2. The representative facts may be noticed from D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 236/2006 which was argued as the leading case.
The appellant filed writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2005, for quashing the enquiry initiated by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu. She was informed that the preliminary enquiry held by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jhunjhunu disclosed that third child was born to the appellant after 27.11.1995; if she so desired, she could appear for personal hearing on the date fixed viz 16.12.1995, and submit her show-cause and produce evidence failing which the enquiry would be concluded ex-parte. It is relevant to mention here that having more than two children-born after 27.11.1995-is a disqualification for election as panch or member of the Panchayati Raj Institution under Sec. 19(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
The election in question was held in the month of January 2005. The appellant contested the election and was elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bheemsar within Panchayat Samiti Jhunjhunu. According to the respondents, by reason of the birth of the third child after 27.11.2005 she was disqualified from contesting the election and she was, therefore, not entitled to continue in office. Challenging the authority of the CEO to make any enquiry in respect of pre-election disqualification the appellant filed the writ petition. She also prayed for stay of enquiry proceedings. It was submitted before the learned Single Judge that there was conflict of opinion on the point and some petitions had been referred to larger Bench to resolve the dispute. The writ petition of the appellant was admitted to hearing on 27.02.2006. By a separate order on the same day the learned Single Judge declined to stay the enquiry observing that the appellant can challenge the findings of the enquiry in revision under Sec. 97 of the Act. Challenging the said order dt. 27.02.2006 the appellant has come to Division Bench in this appeal contending inter alia that in similar cases enquiry has been stayed by this Court.
On 18.05.2006 the Division Bench observed that the case involves questions of law which need to be decided and considering that office of Sarpanch has a fixed term, the appeal may be finally decided at the stage of admission itself lest the exercise may become infructuous. Later, by order dt. 25.07.2006 after a detailed hearing, the Division Bench referred the case to larger Bench so that conflict between different judgments, if any, may be resolved and an authoritative pronouncement is made on the point. That is how the case came before this Bench.
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) Nos. 276/2006 and 289/2006 are converse cases at the instance of the complainant and the State, respectively, challenging the interim order of the learned Single Judge dt. 20.12.2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9558/2005 staying the order of the State Government dt. 02.11.2005 by which the writ petitioner/respondent, Dinesh Chand, was removed from the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Baseri on receipt of the enquiry report of CEO Zila Parishad, Dholpur holding that he was disqualified for election as he had more than two children after 27.11.2005.
The aforesaid order was passed or notice issued in connection wi
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
