Back
2008 Supreme(P&H) 1948
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jaswant Singh
C.W.P. No. 14201 of 2008 (O&M)
Baljit Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 20/11/2008}
For the Petitioners:Mr. Ramandeep Singh Pandher, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.1 to 4: Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
For the Respondent No.5:Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
For the Respondents No.6 to 9:Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Election of Sarpanch--When all panches were present, adjouring of meeting without any cause is not justified--Declaration of sarpanch after wards illegal.
Headnote:Election Law--Election of Sarpanch--Validity of--Fraud played by Presiding Officer--Out of 9 panches 5 panches who are petitioners were present in first meeting, remaining 4 panches were not present--Said meeting was adjourned due to lack of quoram--In next meeting all 9 panches were present but Presiding officer without any justification adjourned the meeting without conducting election of sarpanche which under law he was duty bound to conduct--On next meeting Presiding Officer did not come present at venue and did not conduct election--Later on proceedings were recorded at a different place which was shown to be attended by 6 panches who elected one of them as Sarpanch--Same Presiding officer played similar fraud in another village declared one panch elected as Sarpanch without there being any election--In fact and circumstances particularily when fraud is played by Presiding Officer to election process and election of village meeting in which Sarpanch was elected quashed--|Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, Section 13-A--Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.:-The petitioners, who are 5 out of 9 Panches of Gram Panchayat, Village Bambiha, Tehsil and District Bathinda, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the proceedings of the meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat held on 21.7.2008, wherein respondent No.6 Kheta Singh was elected as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the official respondents to convene a fresh meeting of the members of Gram Panchayat for conducting the election of the Sarpanch in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Panchayat Election Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the election of nine members of Gram Panchayat of the village was held on 26.5.2008. After the election, names of nine elected Panches were duly notified and oath of allegiance was administered to them. Thereafter, under Section 13-A of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda (respondent No.3 herein) authorised Shri Rajinder Singh, Sub Divisional Officer (respondent No.4 herein) as Presiding Officer to convene the first meeting of the newly elected members of the Gram Panchayat to conduct the election of the office of Sarpanch. Accordingly, respondent No.4 convened the first meeting of the Gram Panchayat on 18.7.2008. The said meeting was attended by 5 Panches i.e. the petitioners and the remaining 4 Panches, who belong to the opposite group, remained absent. Therefore, due to lack of quorum, the said meeting was adjourned to 19.7.2008, as sub-rule (2) of Rule 45 of the Rules prescribes two-third quorum for the first meeting. However, as per sub-rule (6), no quorum is necessary for the second meeting. On 19.7.2008, due to non-availability of time to the Presiding Officer, the meeting was again adjourned to 20.7.2008. On 20.7.2008, the meeting was held at Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, which was attended by all the 9 Panches, but the said meeting was again postponed to 21.7.2008 at 12 noon, on the ground that no time was left.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4, the Presiding Officer, was in connivance with the minority group and on one pretext or the other, he had illegally adjourned the aforesaid meetings, in order to provide time to the other group to manipulate the requisite support. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 21.7.2008, for whole of the day, all the 5 petitioners remained present at the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, where the meeting was to be held, but the Presiding Officer did not reach there. The petitioners made a video movie, in which Kuljeet Singh, Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Sangat, acknowledges that the Presiding Officer did not reach at the venue to conduct the meeting of the members of the Gram Panchayat for the purpose of election of the Sarpanch. Immediately, the petitioners moved an application to the Block Development and Panchayat Officer. On the next morning i.e. on 22.7.2008, the petitioners made a complaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda, to conduct an enquiry. On the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda and he reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda. On that, the Deputy Commissioner sent a letter to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Irrigation Department, Chandigarh, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-11, about non-holding of the election of the Sarpanch by respondent No.4 on 21.7.2008. The Deputy Commissioner further ordered for fresh enquiry by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bathinda. During the course of enquiry, the Sub Divisional Magistrate recorded statements of number of persons and submitted the report to the Deputy Commissioner, copy of which has been annexed with t
