PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Satish Kumar Mittal and Jaswant Singh JJ.
Malkit Kaur
Versus
State Of Punjab
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 10877 of 2008,
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 11431 of 2008,
Decided On : JANUARY 7, 2009
Panchayat Election - Reservation - Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 - Section 11 - Instructions dated 26.06.2003 - The judgment discusses the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, particularly Section 11, and the Instructions dated 26.06.2003 in the context of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Caste (Woman), Women, and Backward Classes in Panchayat elections. The court examines the issue of whether a candidate nominated for a reserved seat can be considered and elected against the general category seat if they secure more votes than the candidate of the general category. The judgment also highlights the conflicting views of different Division Benches of the Court on the declaration of results in a multi-member single constituency, leading to the conclusion that the matter requires re-consideration by a Larger Bench.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners contested Panchayat elections for reserved and general category seats. They challenged the election results and the Instructions dated 26.06.2003, claiming that candidates nominated for reserved seats should be considered for election in the general category if they secure more votes than the general category candidates. The State contended that candidates nominated for reserved seats should only be considered for election in the reserved category.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found conflicting interpretations of the law and conflicting judgments by different Division Benches of the Court. It concluded that the matter requires re-consideration by a Larger Bench.
Issues: The issues to be considered and answered in the petitions are: (i) Whether a candidate nominated for a reserved seat is entitled to be considered and elected on the general category seat if they secure more votes than the general category candidate; (ii) Whether a candidate nominated for a reserved seat forfeits the right to contest the general category seat; (iii) The manner of declaring results in a multi-member single constituency with reserved and unreserved seats.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment discusses the concept of a multi-member single constituency, the provisions of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, and the Instructions dated 26.06.2003. It highlights the conflicting views of different Division Benches of the Court on the declaration of results in a multi-member single constituency and concludes that the matter requires re-consideration by a Larger Bench.
Final Decision: The Court concluded that the conflicting interpretations of the law and conflicting judgments by different Division Benches of the Court require re-consideration by a Larger Bench.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. This order shall deal with CWP Nos. 10804 of 2008, 10877 of 2008 and 11431 of 2008.
2. In CWP No. 10804 of 2008, the petitioners, who contested the election for the seat of Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Moond Khera and secured 2 and 108 votes, respectively, and were declared defeated, have filed this petition for quashing the election result, whereby respondent No. 6 (Amar Singh) and respondent No. 7 (Hasan Ali) have been declared elected by the Presiding Officer, who had secured 49 and 21 votes, respectively, the same being unconstitutional, illegal and void; and further for quashing the Instructions dated 26.6.2003 (Annexure P3) issued by the Secretary to Government Punjab, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Chandigarh, on the basis of which the above-said result was declared.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that Gram Panchayat of Village Moond Khera consists of five Members (known as Panches), who are to be elected by the electorals of the Gram Sabha. As per Section 11 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the `Panchayati Raj Act), out of five seats of Panches, one was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, two for Women and the remaining two seats were to be filled up from General Category.
4. In the Panchayat elections held on 26.05.2008, nine candidates,including the petitioners contested against the aforesaid five seats of Panches. Two candidates nominated themselves for one seat reserved for Scheduled Caste and three candidates for two seats reserved for `Women. The remaining four candidates contested the election as General Category candidates. In the said election, the aforesaid nine candidates secured votes as follows :-
1. Gurmail Kaur (Scheduled Caste) 163 2. Karnail Singh (Scheduled Caste) 02 3. Jasveer Kaur (Woman) 127 4. Sandeep Kaur (Woman) 125 5. Jarnail Kaur (Woman) 108 6. Amar Singh (General) 49 7. Hassan Ali (General) 21 8. Surjeet Singh (General) 04 9. Raheem Din (General) 01
5 The Returning Officer declared Gurmail Kaur elected against the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate, who secured 163 votes; Jasveer Kaur and Sandeep Kaur against two seats reserved for Women, who secured 127 and 125 votes, respectively; Amar Singh and Hassan Ali against two seats meant for General Category, who secured 49 and 21 votes, respectively. Petitioner No. 2 Jarnail Kaur, who secured 108 votes and petitioner No. 1 Karnail Singh, who secured two votes, were declared defeated.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that under Section 11 of the Panchayati Raj Act, seats are to be reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Caste (Woman), Women and for Backward Classes on the basis of their respective population in the village. As far as General Category is concerned, this Section does not provide for any reservation. The unreserved seats are to be filled up from the candidates belonging to General Category. Thus, when a seat is to be filled up from General Category, then a Scheduled Caste (Man or Woman), Backward Class (Man or Woman) and Woman are entitled to contest the said seat. If a Scheduled Caste candidate or a Scheduled Caste (Woman) or a Woman candidate secures more votes, he or she can be declared elected in General Category, irrespective of the fact whether he or she has nominated himself or herself for the seat reserved for Scheduled Caste or Woman.
7. It is further contended that earlier the State of Punjab had issued instructions dated 22.04.2003 wherein it was explained that a Man or Woman belonging to Scheduled Caste Category can also contest the election of the General Category. A man belonging to Scheduled Caste or a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste can contest the election against the seats meant for General Category. It further provides that a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste can also contest the election reserved for man belonging to Scheduled Caste. The woman belonging to General Category c
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.