M.C. JAIN, J.—In the above two writ petitions a common preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions has been raised, so I propose to dispose of that objection by this order.

2. By these writ petitions, the elections of Pradhans of Panchayat Samitis have been challenged and it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions namely; Narendrasingh in Civil Writ Petition No. 7 of 1982 and Tej Singh in (Civil Writ Petition No. 80 of 1982 may be declared elected as Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti, Bali and Balotra respectively and the elections of respondent No. 1 namely; Raghunath Parihar in he first writ petition and Narpatkaran in the second writ petition may be declared invalid.

3. I may briefly advert to the material facts of the first writ petition. The petitioner in that petition was elected as a Panch from Ward No. 5 of Gram Panchayat, Boya Tehsil Bali. The elections, whereof, were held on December 10,1981. The petitioner was a voter for the office of Pradhan of Panchayat Samiti as Gram Panchayat, Boya, Tehsil Bali was its constituent. The election for Panchas and Sarpanch were held simultaneously. Shri Arjun Singh, respondent No. 3 came to be elected as Sarpanch of Ward No 7 of village Panchayat Beda. Being a Sarpanch, he is a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Bali. The election for the office of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti, Bali was held on December 26, 1981. Shri Narendra Singh respondent No. 2, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bijapur was one of the candidates and the other candidate was the respondent No. 1 Raghunath Parihar. He was neither a Panch nor a Sarpanch of any Gram Panchayat. In all 440 votes were cast, out of which one was declared illegal. Shri Raghunath Parihar (respondent No. 1) secured 220 votes, whereas, Shri Narendrasingh (respondent No. 2) secured 219 votes. Consequently, Shri Raghunath Parihar was declared elected. The petitioners case in that writ petition is that the name of third respondent Shri Arjunsingh was shown in the electoral roll, published in Form No V as per rule 16 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election of Pradhan and Pramukh) Rules, 1979 (for short the Rules). Shri Arjunsingh chose to cast his vote twice over purporting to have done so, once as a Sarpanch and then as a Panch. He being a Supporter of Congress (1) and Shri Raghunath Parihar being a candidate of Congress (I), the two votes cast by Shri Arjunsingh must have gone to Shri Raghunath Parihar. When Shri Arjunsingh was called upon to cast his vote for second time, a protest was raised by the second respondent Shri Narendrasingh by an application made in this behalf but the Returning Officer rejected the same on the ground that Shri Arjunsingh is entitled to vote twice over as his name is placed in the electoral roll at two places; at one place as a Panch and at another place as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Beda. The ground of challenge is that Shri Arjunsingh under the scheme of the Rules and the Act cannot hold office both of Panch and Sarpanch simultaneously and so, he was not entitled to cast votes twice and thus, the votes cast by him have been rendered void and so Shri Raghunath Parihar cannot but be deemed to have secured 218 as against 219 votes secured by the second respondent under the Rajasthan Panchayat Act, a Panch is elected from a ward whereas the Sarpanch is elected by the entire electorate of the Gram Panchayat and on being elected as Sarpanch, he ceases to be a Panch unless he chooses to demit the office of Sarpanch. Simultaneously he cannot hold two offices of a Panch and a Sarpanch.

4. The petitioner has challenged the election in his capacity as elector for the office of Pradhan and in the capacity of a tax-payer and a resident of the area falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti, so is deeply interested in the proper constitution of Panchayat Samiti and as such, he has a right to challenged the election of the first respondent. The petitioner aver

Click Here to Read the rest of this document