PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Dulat and A.N.Grover JJ.
Piara Singh Sardar Dasaundha Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Letter Patent Appeal No. 3 of 1962,
Decided On : MARCH 16, 1962
ELECTION - PANCHAYAT SAMITI - PRIMARY MEMBER - MARKET COMMITTEE - JURISDICTION - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE - ELECTION OF MEMBER FROM MARKET COMMITTEE OUTSIDE BLOCK - VALIDITY - WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY - ELECTION PETITION - DISCRETION OF COURT.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Sarpanch and duly elected member of the Panchayat Samiti, challenged the election of respondent as a primary member of the Panchayat Samiti, alleging that he was not eligible to be elected as he was a member of a Market Committee located outside the block of the Panchayat Samiti.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent was not eligible to be elected as a primary member of the Panchayat Samiti as the Market Committee of which he was a member was located outside the block of the Panchayat Samiti. The Court interpreted the relevant statutory provision to mean that only members of Market Committees located within the block could be elected as primary members of the Panchayat Samiti.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent was eligible to be elected as a primary member of the Panchayat Samiti despite being a member of a Market Committee located outside the block of the Panchayat Samiti? 2. Whether the existence of an alternative remedy by way of an election petition barred the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the relevant statutory provision to mean that only members of Market Committees located within the block could be elected as primary members of the Panchayat Samiti. The Court held that the respondent, being a member of a Market Committee located outside the block, was not eligible to be elected as a primary member of the Panchayat Samiti. 2. The Court held that the existence of an alternative remedy by way of an election petition did not bar the petitioner from seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the remedy by way of an election petition may not have been available due to the expiry of the time limit for filing such a petition.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and issued a writ of quo warranto directing the respondents to treat the election of the respondent as a member of the Panchayat Samiti void, illegal, and ineffective.
A.N.Grover, J.
1. This is an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters patent against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. The petition was filed by Piara Singh who is a Sarpanch of village Machrai in Police Station Siri Hargobindpur. He also resides within the block of Siri Hargobindpur and is a voter and duly elected member of Panchayat Samiti of that block. By means of a notification dated 28th April 1961, the Punjab Government constituted block in the District of Gurdaspur for the election of Panchayat Samitis pursuant to the provisions of clause (2) of section 2 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Eleven blocks were constituted in the District of Gurdaspur. Batala is shown as block No. 10 in the Gazette notification while Siri Hargobindpur is shown as block No. 11 (Annexure A). According to section 5(2) of the Act a Panchayat Samiti shall consist of the following members:
(a) Primary members to be elected in the manner prescribed;
(b) Associate members;
(c) Co-opted members;
(d) Ex-officio members.
In the present case we are only concerned with the provision relating to election of primary members, namely, clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 5. Now, the primary members, as provided in the aforesaid provision, are to be elected in the following manner: (i) Sixteen members from the block, by the Panches and Sarpanches of Gram Panchayats in the block from amongst themselves;
(ii) two members representing the Co-operative Societies within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti by the members of such Societies elected in the manner prescribed from amongst the members of these Societies.
(iii) one member representing the Market Committees in the block by the members of such Committees amongst the producer members residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti.
3. In August 1961, the election of the Panchayat Samiti took place for the aforesaid block. Respondent Satan Singh was elected as representing the Market Committees in the block from amongst the producer members residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti Siri Hargobindpur. The case of the petitioner was that before the election the Returning and Presiding Officer had issued instructions for the election of such a member from amongst the producer members of the Market Committees of Batala and Qudian and this fact was not denied by the respondents. The Market Committees were constituted by means of Certain notification issued under section 4(1) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939. The area of jurisdiction of the Market Committees of Batala and Qadian as shown in the relevant notifications did not fall within the area of the jurisdiction of Panchayat Samiti. According to the allegations in the petition, the area of Market Committee, Batala, fell within the jurisdiction of Batala block and the Market Committee, Batala, was functioning within Batala Block Panchayat Samiti and had no concern with Siri Hargobindpur block. The Qadian Market Committee was functioning within the jurisdiction of Municipal Committee, Qadian and had nothing to do with Siri Hargobindpur block.
The first and the main point that was agitated in the petition was that Satnam Singh respondent No. 4 was not eligible to be elected to the Panchayat Samiti of Siri Hargobindpur as the Market Committee, Qadian was not functioning within the jurisdiction of Siri Hargobindpur Block Panchayat Samiti although he was a producer member of the Market Committee of Qadian. The other objection taken to his eligibility to stand for election was that he was a Sub-Registrar and as such was disqualified from being elected as a member of Panchayat Samiti under section 6(1)(b). Yet a third objection was taken, namely, that as he was a Municipal Commissioner of Qadian he could not stand for election to the Committee of any other notifie
Shri Dev Parkash V/s. Babu Ram
N. P. Ponnuswami V/s. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.