SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(P&H) 256

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.C.Mital and S.S.Kang JJ.
Kanshi Ram
Versus
Siri Ram
Civil Writ Petition No. 4152 of 1979,
Decided On : DECEMBER 19, 1979

The right of appeal is a substantive right and should not be easily restricted, and unless there is an express provision to the contrary, a right of appeal should not be easily restricted.

Headnote:

Election Petition - Appealability of Order - Statutory Right of Appeal

Fact of the Case:

The election petition challenging the election of a Sarpanch was allowed, and the petitioner was declared as duly elected. The appeal against this decision was dismissed on the ground that the impugned order was not appealable.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order passed under Section 13-OO of the Act is appealable, as it is based on the order under Section 13-N, and a right of appeal is a substantive right not to be easily restricted.

Issues: The main issue was the appealability of the order passed under Section 13-OO of the Act, which was considered a composite order with Section 13-N.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right of appeal given by Section 13-V against an order passed under Section 13-N is not taken away by the composite nature of the order, as the consequential order under Section 13-OO is dependent on the order under Section 13-N.

Final Decision: The impugned order of the District Judge was set aside, and the District Judge was directed to entertain the appeal and decide it according to law.

Judgment

1. The salient facts of this writ petition are that the election petition filed by Siri Ram challenging the election of Kanshi Ram to the office of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat of village Badhawana, was allowed by the prescribed authority and under S.13-OO of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, Siri Ram was declared as duly elected Sarpanch. The appeal of Kanshi Ram, instituted under Section 13-V of the Act, has been dismissed by the District Judge, Bhiwani, on the ground that the impugned order was not appealable. Feeling aggrieved, Kanshi Ram has preferred this writ petition.

2. Now the relevant part of S.13-N (1) of the Act lays down :-

"Where an election petition has not been dismissed under Section 13-E, the prescribed authority shall enquire into the election petition and at the conclusion of the inquiry shall make an order :-

(a) dismissing the election petition; or

(b) setting aside the election ........ ............ .............. ........"

3. Then Section 13-OO of the Act provides that a petitioner may in addition to claiming a declaration that the election of any of the returned candidates is void, claim a declaration that he himself has been duly elected. Sub-Section (2) of Section 13-OO of the Act further provides that the prescribed authority shall after declaring election of the returned candidate to be void, declare the petitioner to have been duly elected. The next provision of the Act deserving consideration is of Sec. 13-V which reads :-

"(1) any party aggrieved by an order made by the prescribed authority under Section 18-N may appeal to the Court of the District Judge within thirty days of the date of such order......................................"

4. The District Judge, Bhiwani, has passed the impugned order on the ground that Section 13-V provides appeal from only order under Sec. 13-N of the Act. According to the District Judge the impugned order being a composite one, that is, passed under Sections 13-N and 13-OO, the same is not appealable. The approach of the District Judge appears to be untenable. It is to be borne in mind that unless and until an election is set aside under Sec. 13-N the consequential declaratory order, envisaged by Section 13-OO of the Act, cannot be passed. Thus, it is clear that the very foundation of an order passed under Section 13-OO of the Act is the order under Section 13-N of the Act. When the statute (Section 13-V of the Act) has clearly made an order passed under Section 13-N of the Act appealable, one fails to see how the statutory right can be taken away merely because Section 13-V does not in its terms make mention of order passed under S.13-OO of the Act. An order passed in this Section has no independent existence, inasmuch as passing of an order under Section 13-N setting aside an election must precede it. Another way of looking at the matter is that if the appeal filed by Kanshi Ram under Section 13-V of the Act against the order under Section 13-N, is allowed the consequential order passed under Section 13-OO declaring Siri Ram duly elected as Sarpanch, falls to the ground automatically. It is well settled that a right of appeal is a substantive right and not a procedural matter. Courts should construe such provisions liberally and not narrowly. Unless there be an express provision to the contrary, a right of appeal is not to be easily restricted.

5. For the foregoing reasons there appears no force in the view that since the impugned order is a composite order passed under Sections 13-N and 13-OO of the Act, therefore, the right of appeal given by Section 13-V against an order passed under Sec. 13-N is taken away. The impugned order of the District Judge thus cannot be sustained, and, it is set aside. The District Judge to entertain the appeal and decide it according to law. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to appear before him on 2-1-1980.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top